A Total Eclipse Of Freedom
By Burnice L. Russ
Table Of Contents
1
A DECLARATION AND TREATY OF PEACE...8
The Bank Bill, (1809)...20
AMERICAN LAND OWNERSHIP..20
STATE VS. DISTRICT, DID THE 1787 CONSTITUTION SURVIVE Fall 1997...24
Martial Law - Military jurisdiction - Military necessity – Retaliation...25
PLAN OF A NEW GOVERNMENT..26
The 1754 Albany Plan of Union..26
UNDERSTANDING FEE SIMPLE..27
INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS ...30
ANCIENT STATUTES...32
OUR FORE FATHERS WANTED THE BENEFITS AND PRIVILEGES WITHOUT PAYING THE TAX TO THE KING...41
WHERE THE PRESENT DAY TAXES COME FROM..42
THE FEDERAL RESERVE SISTER OF THE EXCHEQUER...44
Federal Register PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS..47
Secret Treaty Of Verona..48
THE JESUIT OATH...50
Florida Gas Transmission..53
DICK CHENEY WAS AT THE HELM OF HALLIBURTON UNTIL HE BECAME THE VICE PRESIDENT..54
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE PAPER TRAIL; Roadblocks Cited In Efforts to Trace Bin Laden's Money...54
DO WE DARE CALL THIS TREASON? The SILK ROAD series...57
From the Federal Reserves Own Admissions...62
The United States is Still a British Colony...65
Council of State...68
The Federal Reserve, Taxes and Tax Court...70
Constitution & Law....76
Common Law...79
Social Security Number...82
Right to Keep and Bear Arms...82
DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL...87
Drug Wars...90
2
Education & the Lack Thereof...92
MARIJUANA AS MEDICINE:
FACTS THE GOVERNMENT IGNORES...94
Child Protective Services...95
George W Bush, Political Terrorist...96
The Genesis of the Emergency / War Power Act...98
How do you control the enemy?...102
M0RGAN VISITS WHITE H0USE IN OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT BANK...104
Citizenship, income taxes and Constitutional, limitations on government...108
HOW HARMFUL IS MARIJUANA?...114
MARIJUANA MYTHS...115
MERRY-GO ROUND...116
The New Freedom Initiative...119
Forced mental health evaluations..120
Notice to Citizens IRS United States in default... it's the Law!...123
IRS Identity & Principal of Interest..124
DOES PROHIBITION CAUSE MORE HARM THAN MARIJUANA?...171
Quotes of the Founding Fathers...172
Ruby Ridge Incident:..190
THE MIRACLE OF PASSOVER..255
THE ANTHRAX LETTERS: ANOTHER ANTI-ARAB FRAME UP...261
HUNDREDS OF MOSSAD AGENTS RUNNING WILD IN AMERICA!...265
ZIONISTS WANT WORLD WAR III....269
THE ATTACKS WILL BE GOOD FOR US-ISRAEL RELATIONS...273
A CLOSING STATEMENT FROM THE FATHER OF OUR COUNTRY...275
THIS IS THE GREATEST SCAM IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE!!...275
WHERE THERE'S WAR THERE'S MONEY...276
THE REAL REASON WE ARE AT WAR!...276
How U.S. Gold Reserves Were Stolen...278
THE HISTORY OF MONEY PART 1-3...279
WAR POWERS
THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF THE GOVERNMENT TO APPROPRIATE PRIVATE PROPERTY TO PUBLIC USE,
3
EITHER IN TIME OF PEACE OR IN TIME OF WAR...286
THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE ALL SUBJECTS TO DO MILITARY DUTY...286
REFERENCES AS TO THE CONSTITUTION, SHOWING THE WAR POWERS OF CONGRESS...287
RULES OF INTERPRETATION...287
ARE THE UNITED STATES AT WAR?...287
THE LAW OF NATIONS IS ABOVE THE CONSTITUTION...287
WHETHER BELLIGERENTS SHOULD BE ALLOWED CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION DEPENDS UPON THE POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT...288
THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS CONFISCATION...288
MILITARY GOVERNMENT UNDER MARTIAL LAW...289
THE CONFISCATION ACTS OF 1862 IS NOT A BILL OF ATTAINDER, NOR AN EX POST FACTO LAW...290
DEBTORS AND CREDITORS...304
U.S. Inc. Goes To Geneva 1930's...305
Roosevelt Stacks Supreme Court...305
The "Mother Corporation" Goes Bankrupt...305
Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Emerges as the Law of the Land...306
"THIS CASE IS NOT TO BE CITED IN ANY OTHER CASE AND IS NOT TO BE REPORTED IN ANY
COURTS...310
Attention: Law Student...316
The Bankruptcy Accounting System...317
THE BANKER'S MANIFEST...322
The enemy within: The neocon hijacking of America...331
Marijuana Suppression...332
NO ONE HAS EVER DIED FROM USING CANNABIS / MARIJUANA...333
The Root of Your Economic Problems...334
The Switch From Wealth to Debt...334
1922 series ten dollar gold certificate...335
The True American Flag...338
The Gold Fringed Flag...338
The Full Text Of The Declaration of Independence...342
The Constitution of the United States...348
The Amendments...357
4
The Trading With the Enemy Act Chapter 106 of the War Powers Act of 1917...363
The Bush Family...381
SECRETS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE ...385
The Independent Treasury Act of 1920 ...520
100 YEARS OF UNIFORM LAWS ...521
The concept of DEBTORS and CREDITORS ...527
ROOSEVELT STACKS SUPREME COURT...528
THE SNARE...532
THE FRAUD...533
U.S. INC. IS DISTINCT AND SEPARATE FROM PRIVATE AMERICANS...533
THE REAL ESTATE SNARE...536
YOUR SIGNATURE IS YOUR MOST VALUABLE PROPERTY...538
THE COVER-UP...539
THE WHOLE SYSTEM IS NOTHING BUT CREDIT AND DEBT.
THE WORLD CREDIT UNION...542
During the Federalist Debates, the founding fathers decide that both the State governments and the
new Federal government can not impose any same kind of tax at the same time. If one government
imposes a property tax, the other can not; if one has an income tax, the other can not, etc. Any taxing
authority not delegated to the federal government will be reserved for the States. Congress will be
responsible for collecting national taxes from the States who will collect the taxes from their citizens.
The Debates also resolves that State taxes are to be classified as internal taxes and National taxes are to
be classified as external taxes.
1787: A few members of the newly created U.S. Congress immediately try to transfer Congress' power
to collect taxes to the Treasury Department. The bill is declared unconstitutional and fails to become
law. July 14, 1798: In preparation for a war with France, the Federal government imposes a $2 million
direct tax. The tax is apportioned among the States who collect the tax from property owners. July 22,
1812: To help pay for the costs of the 1812 war, the Federal government imposes a $3 million direct
income tax. The tax is apportioned among the States who collected the tax from property owners. The
5
law that imposed this tax provided a 15 percent discount to States that paid their apportioned tax up
front. The following month, the Federal government creates tax districts, each with it’s own private tax
assessor and collector who earn a commission from the taxes they collect.
January 9, 1815: Again because of the 1812 War, the Federal government imposes a $6 million direct tax
which was apportioned among the States. This tax allowed tax collectors to sell property of citizens that
did not pay their share of the tax, however, essential property like homes, tools of trade and household
utensils were exempt. To protect the public from abusive tax collectors, penalties applied to collectors
who used extortion or otherwise broke the law to make collections.
August 5, 1861: The outbreak of Civil War leads the Federal government to impose a $20 million
apportioned direct tax. The Act which created this war tax also included a new form of taxation; the
income tax as we better know it today. This first general income tax was set at 1-3% which applied to
less than 1 percent of the US population who had incomes over $800. To avoid apportionment
requirements by the U.S. Constitution the new income tax was classified as an indirect tax. instead of the
proper classification of a direct tax. The new income tax was not challenged until 1871.
That delay allowed a precedent with Congress to incorrectly classify taxes to bypass Constitution
restrictions on federal taxes. States were allowed to deduct 10 to 15 percent if they paid their share of
the tax for their citizens up front. Also, because of the war, Congress was able to pass tax collection
laws that would normally violate Constitutional Rights. To enforce the tax, Congress creates the
position of Commissioner of Tax, a position that included the authority to hire an unlimited number of
assistants.
1884: The Federal government imposes another income tax.
1895: In Pollock vs Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co, the Supreme Court rules that general income taxes are
unconstitutional because they are unapportioned direct taxes. To this day, the ruling has not been overturned.
June 15, 1909: After the Supreme Court ruled general income taxes unconstitutional, President Taft
proposes three new taxes to Congress. A graduated inheritance tax, another general income tax, and a
new corporate tax. In the attempt to bypass the Supreme Court’s Pollack ruling, Taft also proposes the
16th Amendment with the intention of taxing profits made from commercial activity.
1913: With the ratification of the 16th Amendment, Congress creates the federal internal income tax and
the Federal Reserve Bank to fight the inflation caused by paper currency. All income tax collections are
forwarded to the Federal Reserve to pay the interest on it's publicly circulated money. The withdrawal of
currency from public circulation through the new tax and the new Federal Reserve stabilizes inflation.
January 24, 1916: In Brushaber vs. Union Pacific Railroad, the Supreme Court ruled: that the 16th
Amendment doesn’t over-rule the Court’s ruling in the Pollock case which declared general income
taxes unconstitutional; The 16the Amendment applies only to gains and profits from commercial and
investment activities: The 16th Amendment only applies to excises taxes; The 16th Amendment did not
Amend the U.S. Constitution; The 16th Amendment only clarified the federal governments existing
authority to create excise taxes without apportionment. 1939: Congress passes the Public Salary tax,
taxing the wages of federal employees.
1940: Congress passes the Buck Act authorizing the federal government to tax federal workers living in
the States.
1942, Congress passes the Victory Tax under Constitutional authority to support the WWII effort.
President Roosevelt proposes a voluntary tax withholding program allowing workers across the nation
to pay the tax in installments. The program is a success and the number of tax payers increases from 3
percent to 62 percent of the U.S. population.
1944: The Victory Tax and Voluntary Withholding laws are repealed as required by the U.S.
Constitution, however, the federal government continues to collect the tax claiming it’s authority under
the 1913 income tax and the 16th Amendment.
Today: A mixture of the 1913 income tax, the 16th Amendment. the Public Salary Act and the Victory
tax has embedded itself as a legitimate tax on the people of the U.S. in spite of the long standing rulings
6
by the Supreme Court that strictly limit the scope of any income tax. This is your new beginning, a fresh
look at the world and yourself. Rather than flailing and raging at the world it is often more empowering
to look at yourself and how you meet the challenges this world presents. A New Beginning is a practical
Course in Miracles that is at once commercial, political, secular, social and spiritual. This is a practicum,
not just talk and theory. This is a laboratory of ideas, attitudes and practices that you can test in the
world around you. And along the way you will discover a great wealth awaiting you that has always
been yours. But you didn't know it existed. You didn't know, so you had no right to it. Even if you know
it exists but you don't know HOW to get it, you still have no right to it. The New Beginnings Practical
Course in Miracles is one of the tools you can use to bridge the
chasm of deception, illusion and ignorance. You will find professionals who can help you with mortgage
elimination, to help you eliminate credit card debt, student loan debt, and eliminate taxes you have been
volunteering to pay. That might seem like a significant miracle to you but it is real and available. This
course will help you open your eyes, your mind, and your heart to receive the gift of being you.
This administrative process works well but the banks are not honoring the terms of the mortgage
agreement. When the debt is discharged they are refusing to reconvey the deed. If you wish to use the
consumer protection laws passed by Congress, signed by the President and the regulations set out by the
Federal Reserve, we can help you stop Predatory Lending by the banks, show you how to obtain
monetary awards from the fines and possibly get your home free and clear of debt read about Mortgage
Analysis Compliance.
Now that you have given them notice that you know that you are sovereign and that you now control
your strawman corporation, AND that you have cancelled the debt of that corporation by using your
credit, you can establish YOUR law. Your law will be the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. First we
will go back to the original law, the Ten Commandments, that started the current line of laws that we
have today in order to understand just what they were REALLY about.
I bet you thought that the Ten Commandments were written for you to obey another of a higher
authority, right? Of course, we should adhere to their principals, but did you know that the Ten
Commandments were written for us to use so that our creation can obey US? The Ten Commandments
are structured so that YOU say them from YOUR viewpoint. You have probably never heard of this
before, have you? Well, that is because we have gotten into our creation (our physical world) so deep
we think “we are the creation.” Well, as you have learned in course 3, we are the creators of
everything we see and do and think. What we see is just the reflection of our own mind, and the Ten
Commandments are the reflection of what we as gods actually command to our creation. Go to Exodus
20.
Just imagine you are looking into the mirror and saying the first commandment,
1. You shall have no other gods before me.Who is saying those words and making that reflection in the
mirror? An entity called Yahweh, Jahovah, Elohim, etc.,etc., etc.? Nope, guess again, how about, YOU?
It appears that we have turned reality upside down and backwards toget out of taking responsibility. We
have done the impossible - making the image real and then obeying it. We have even made an image with
7
initials "US" so that we might escape responsibility and say "the world must obey US (UNITED
STATES)" In reality, our own world (our image including the UNITED SATES) must obey each one of
us!
Since our creation is also a reflection of ourselves, we also must heed this universal principal. We can
have no other gods before us so that we worship (create worth) anything else more than we value
ourselves. We are responsible for our universe alone and not another – how can they be? How can
another be responsible for your actions and your deeds – it is an impossibility. Did another think your
thoughts, DO your actions and move your body. Even though a number of major religions will “argue”
otherwise, YOU ARE GUILTY.
Go to the mirror and say the first commandment to your reflection (your creation). Now have your
study partner stand beside you and have them say it LOOKING DIRECTLY AT YOUR REFLECTION.
Did you feel that they were talking to you? Was your partner talking to you or YOUR REFLECTION.
Trade saying this back and forth in the mirror until you have a cognition or realization. You shall not
make unto you any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the
earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth, you shall not bow down yourself to them, nor
serve them Graven Heb pecel – idol, to carve wood or stone, grave, hew.
Image – there is no word for image, it was added to aid in understanding of GRAVEN.
Likeness Heb temunah – something portioned or fashioned out, a shape, phantom, embodiment or
manifestation; representation.
Bow Heb shachah – to depress, prostrate (in homage to royalty), fall down, humbly beseech, obey, make
to stoop, worship; related to sachah – make to swim, inundate.
Serve Heb abad – to work, serve, till, enslave, keep in bondage or service (this is the same root word as
Exodus 2:5 “there was not man to till the ground”, and same as “bondman” when Israel was in Egypt.
Remember, you are saying this to the mirror - to your creation. So why would we want to make a law
like this? Well, what if you started submitting to the image in the mirror (your creation) and you obeyed
it every time it spoke to you or gave you a ticket or got a nasty letter from it? "The government says
this….", or "the TV said that…", "this statute says we cannot do...", "the LAW says we must
conform…", "the Bank says they are going to take my house…".
WHY ARE YOU LISTENING TO AND WORSHIPPING YOUR OWN CREATION???? Who is
running your universe anyway - You or them?
Secondly, it does not say "you shall NOT make graven images". It says - don't make them then give
them authority over you and serve them. You see, you can make anything you want as long as you take
responsibility for it. You may be thinking, "Wow, that is not what I was told, this is just too simple, it
must be more complex" …. NOT.
Drill: With the above definitions in mind, what does an attorney “represent” in the court room? How
about a judge, a corporation, or a title? How have you “bowed down to or served them”?
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that takes his
name in vain.
Lord Heb Yehovah – self-existant, eternal; from hayah – to exist, to be, to become, come to pass,
accomplished; related to Chaldean havah – to exist, to judge.
Name: Heb shem - definite and conspicuous position, honor, authority, character, to put; from shamayim
- aloft in the sky.
Vain Heb shawv - desolating, evil, to rush over, tempest.
Have you ever wondered why you cannot be held guiltless or be forgiven for sinning against the Holy
Spirit? The Holy Spirit translates to "the mind", and when you lie to yourself (your mind) then you
cannot get well. You are stuck in a lie and as long as you do not confront that problem in your face, it
will continue forever!
We have told ourselves countless times that we are "only human", "chaff in the wind", or "a vessel of
God". Is this true? Are you a vessel or is your body a vessel? If you drive your car - are you a car? How
many lies have we told ourselves over our entire existence ANSWER: A LOT!!
8
Then if you truly understand that you are a god who has created all that one sees and experiences, and
you say "I can't do that…", or "why would they listen to me?", what are you really saying? You are
saying that you have not created this circumstance and you do not want to take responsibility for it. You
are saying that you are not "Lord" over
your creation and therefore you have desolated your definite and conspicuous position, your honorable,
lofty name as Lord and master of your creation. You have DISHONORED your name. You have taken
your name as Lord in vain.
Replace phrases like “I can’t” with “I can” or even better “it is done”.
Drill: Write down several examples of negative phrases that you say that LIMIT you or degrade you.
Now write them again like they already EXIST right now, in the present. Discuss this with your study
mate and make an agreement to remind you to talk IN THE PRESENT like your actions already exist.
4. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shall you labor, and do all your work, but the
seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord, in it you shall not do any work, you nor your son, nor daughter,
your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger that is in your gates; For in
six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day;
wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
Remember Heb zakar - to mark, to remember, to mention, record, memorial.
Sabbath Heb - intermission, to repose, desist from exertion, cease, celebrate, rest, put away, take away,
rid.
Labor Heb abad - to work, to serve, till, enslave, keep in bondage, be bondmen, compel, dress, execute,
husbandman, become a servant, do service, transgress, worshipper. Son Heb ben - to build, make,
create. Again you are commanding your creation when you say this, "You will serve me and I will
enslave you, keep you in bondage and I will compel you to become a servant and you and your own
offspring or creations will worship me".
Remember the circle and how it has seven actions? Six of the steps are creating something, then
consuming or enjoying it and when you finally duplicate it and digest it into your mind, what happens to
it on the seventh day? It disappears! What does the Sabbath mean in the viewpoint of the creation? To
repose, to cease, put away, take away, RID - that sounds terminal doesn't it? You are basically saying to
your creation, "remember, I brought you into this world and I can take you out!"
I want to point out that the commandments are not for “ruling” other gods – they are for ruling your
creation. This is important to remember. The intention of this exercise is not to become a megalomaniac
(look it up), but to be responsible for what you are creating.
5. Honour your father and your mother; that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord gives
you. Honour Heb kabad - to be heavy, honourable, weighty, glorify,
Father Heb ab - father, chief, principal. Mother Heb em - a mother as the bond of the family.
Who is your creation's father and mother? Who is the principal of your creation
(#3)? Who spawned it? That would be #1 on the circle…you. How was it created, conceived and bound
through a contract, and where did it first take place? Right, #2 on the circle - your mind. So what are
you telling your creation?
You are telling it "let my words be heavy upon you for I am the principal, take heed to me, your maker,
and obey my contract so that your days may be long upon the land that I have given you."
Can you imagine speaking to a Banker or a government official like that? You are the Creditor of this
country and the fiction called the UNITED STATES and all other corporations. You have given all that
is substance in this country including THE LAND and the production. You have given them your credit
which enabled them to make ALL
of their “money” and “power” which appear they have and factually owe to you. Without you and the
other soverans they would not even exist. Take ownership of this fact right now at this very moment!
6. You shall not kill.
Kill Heb ratsach - to dash in pieces, kill, murder, slay.
Why would you be commanding your creation not to murder? Because only you can say what creation
9
can continue or end - NOT the creation. Only you can consume your creation or destroy it or take it
away - not the Bank or the Secret Service or the IRS – it is not their call, it is not their job, it is NONE
OF THEIR BUSINESS!
If a corporation is giving you a problem, remember you gave them credit, you gave them life. Without
you they could not exist. If they do not recognize this fact, then you will have to “kill” the corporation.
And how does one do that? Remember in the Wizard of OZ when Dorothy, Scarecrow, Tin Man, and
the cowardly Lion all came before the Wizard and wanted something? What did the Wizard tell them?
“Bring me the broom of the Wicked Witch of the West and I will give you what you ask”. Dorothy
exclaimed, “But we may have to kill her to get the broom!” If you remember the Wizard did not answer.
It was like he was saying to himself, “exactly!” So they went to the witch’s castle and how did they get
the broom? They poured water (maritime law) on the WEST (to be security) and liquidated her
(Bankruptcy Liquidation – Chapter 7)! When they completed this task, they all actually realized that
they already had what they wanted. “Dorothy, you could always go back to Kansas”.
Drill: Where is the above story of liquidation on the circle? Is it a coincidence it is in the west in the
water?
7. You shall not commit adultery.
Adultery Heb na'aph - to commit adultery, apostatize.
Apostatize: [Greek apostasia - a standing away from a defection, apo - from + sta - to stand] an
abandonment of what one has professed; a total desertion or departure from one's faith, principles or
party; traitorous.
Of course one would want their creation not to depart from obeying them. You now have your own
religion and your creation must be faithful to you if they want to "live long upon the land". This is
covered in detail in the last part
of Course 3.
8. You shall not steal.
Steal Heb ganab - thieve, to deceive, carry away, secretly bring, get by stealth.
You do not want your creation to carry away, or get by stealth ANYTHING in your realm, in your
universe including other being's creations.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Witness Heb ed - a witness, testimony, recorder, prince.
Neighbor Heb rea - an associate, a thought (as association of ideas); from ra'ah - to tend to a flock, to
pasture it, to rule, to associate with as a friend, companion, wander, waste.
Here again we have an indication that our creation originates from our thoughts. It truly appears that
our creation has a mind of its own, and it will rule us if we do not take responsibility for it and rule it our
selves. Otherwise, it could start lying to us and telling us that we must obey our creation which is of
course a "false testimony".
10. You shall not covet your neighbor's house, you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his
manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is your neighbor's.
Covet Heb chamad - to delight in, beauty, greatly beloved, covet, delectable thing, desire, lust, pleasant,
precious, to long for or wish for.
Desire [Latin desidero from de to take away + sidus a star] to wish, to be in a state of anxiety about
something; an emotion or excitement of the mind, directed to the attainment or possession of an object
from which pleasure is expected.
Now just so you know, all of these laws apply to us as well when we deal with each other as honorable
people. We must respect each other. This being the case, why would you want another's property when
you can create your own? Why is it not OK to desire something - like a car or a house? When you desire
something, you are repeating in
your mind over and over again, "that thing that I want in my mind is what I do not have". Why are you
creating that you do not have it - why are you creating lack? Wouldn't it be more logical to actually
create in your mind that you
10
actually have it? I can hear you now, "but I DON'T HAVE IT" And you know what? You are right,
because you are a god and you can have it your way by continuing to create what just came out of your
mouth. But consider this, if you never
have it in your mind first, YOU WILL NEVER GET IT IN THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.
Remember what value means?
Value: Greek time (tee-may) - a value, money paid, valuables, esteem, dignity itself; from tino - to pay a
price (as a penalty), to be punished with.
When you value something and you desire it, you are saying, "I do not have the thing that I want so bad
and therefore I am punishing myself with it until I get it". What is the product of "TRYING to get
something done for a thousand years"? You get a thousand years of TRYING, but you do not get the
product do you?
I think that this last commandment is one of the most important rules - You shall not covet. This is
where we start remembering how to create again. This is where we take control of our universe and take
responsibility for everything we think and say and do. For if we do not guide our own thoughts and our
own actions then we will get
exactly what we are allowing to be floating around in our minds. If you create "I have" then the physical
universe must obey you, and conversely, if you say "I don't have" then the physical universe will also
obey you. How many times have we said "I don't have enough money to pay the bills", or "I have a
piece of junk for a
car", or "my job sucks"? I just have one question - WHY ARE YOU CREATING THAT? Are you
allowing your creation to dictate to you? Are you basing your life on a piece of paper with ink on it
(called a bank statement) that you interpret as "you do not have enough money"? All I've got to say is …
Wow, that is an incredible thing that a god can actually create lack! A god can create anything, however
you are creating that you DON'T HAVE anything - that is an impossibility. Pat yourself on the back,
congratulations - you are actually doing the impossible!!! I must say that you are doing something
incredibly challenging. Wouldn't it be more fun if you decided you wanted something and took
responsibility for it from its beginning to its end, that you could imagine you already having it - say a
new car. Imagine you seeing your reflection in the shine of the hood, then getting in the car, feeling the
cushion of the seat, the aroma of "new car", the steering wheel in your hands, you turning the key,
driving away with
the wind in you face down a scenic country road, pushing the pedal to the floor for that rush of speed,
all the while having a smile on your face. Feels good doesn't it? You have just created a thought that if
nourished and embellished upon will result in that dream.
You cannot allow physical barriers to get in the way of your dreams. Matter, energy, space and time are
but considerations.
Consideration [Latin considero, con together + sidus a star] to fix the mind on; to respect; to take into
view or account; to meditate on; to regard; to reflect; important or valuable; making allowance for. So if
you are taking into account, meditating, regarding as important or fixing the mind on a barrier to your
dream, then your mind will reflect it into the physical universe and of course, you will get what you
make real – your
worst fears. It's an honest and true universal principle - crap in/crap out, quality in/quality out. And what
if you do not apply the ten commandments to your creation?
Deuteronomy 28:68 And the Lord shall bring you into Egypt again with ships, by the way whereof I
spoke unto you, You shall see it no more again; and there you shall be sold unto your enemies for
bondmen and bondwomen, and no man shall buy you
What does the Power Elite call UNITED STATES? New Egypt! And it is a fiction – you shall see it no
more again. And you have been brought into slavery by way of artificial vessels (ships) called a
strawman. And no man bought us as slaves – WE SOLD OURSELVES INTO BONDAGE to our
enemies who never paid a dime for us andour credit.
Now you have learned that you do create law every time you think and say a word. You are creating
11
whether you want to or not, it just depends on what you are allowing to be in your mind.
Drill: Go to a mountain or large hill so that you can see a panoramic view of "your world" and read the
Ten Commandments out loud one at a time to your creation. Say it like you mean it, like you are talking
to the whole universe, repeat the first commandment until you feel it all the way through you, feeling so
exhilarated that you just want to explode with emotion and be at one with your universe. Your universe
has waited a long time for you to take your throne.
A DECLARATION AND TREATY OF PEACE
Now that you know that you are separate from your creation, you must put it in writing what you want
your creation to do. Since you are your own Sovereign, you are your own nation and thus you have the
responsibility to tell the nations around you what is expected of them. First you must notice the people
that are affecting you the most such as the key local, state, national and international officials. They have
already published their job descriptions and oaths that they promise to do for you. These actions
are called "offers" (offerings) and you as a god must accept them in order to maintain your own honor.
If you do not accept them, then you will go into dishonor and YOU will be consumed instead of the
offering. You will be required to read and understand the instructions in order to enact your Treaty as
the "Supreme Law of the Land".It would be beneficial to get some background as to why America is in
this present situation. Following is a speech by Representative Traficant who Reports On The
Bankruptcy Of The United States,
p
Representative Traficant
United States Congressional Record, March 1, 1993 VOL. 33, page H-1303 The Speaker - Rep. James
Traficant, Jr.
(Ohio) addressing the House. When you have finished examining what is furnished to you here, you will
know WHY James Traficant was "convicted" and sentenced to eight years in federal prison. HE WILL
NEVER EMERGE ALIVE because he KNOWS TOO MUCH AND TRIED TO TELL THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
He spoke on the House Floor on March 17, 1993, and I heard part of the speech on C-SPAN. It was
interrupted and no reason was given; C-SPAN went directly to coverage of another event.
Friday, August 09, 2002 11:55 PM
Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11. . . Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over
the greatest reorganization of any Bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government. We are setting
forth hopefully, a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a coroner's report that will lead
to our demise. It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by
the Emergency Banking Act,
March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; Declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and
insolvent. H. J. R.
192, 73rd. Congress in session June 5, 1933 - Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard and
Abrogate The Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official
capacities of all United States Government Offices, Officers and Departments and is futher evidence that
the United States Federal Government exists today in name only.
The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International Bankers, via the United Nations, the
12
World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. All United States Offices, Officials, and Departments
are now operating within a defacto status in name only under Emergency War Powers. With the
Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved, the receivers of the Bankruptcy have
adopted a new form of government for the United States. This new form of government is known as a
Democracy, being an established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America. This act
was instituted and established by transferring and/or placing the Office of the Secretary of Treasury to
that of the Governor of the International Monetary Fund. Public Law 94-564, page 8, Section H. R.
13955 reads in part:"The U.S. Secretary of Treasury receives no compensation for representing the
United States?"
Gold and silver were such a powerful money during the founding of the United States of America, that
the founding fathers declared that only gold and silver coins can be "money" in America. Since gold and
silver coinage were heavy and inconvenient for a lot of transactions, they were stored in banks and a
claim check was issued as a money substitute. People traded their coupons as money, or "currency."
Currency is not money, but a money substitute. Redeemable currency must promise to pay a dollar
equivalent in gold or silver money. Federal Reserve Notes (FRN's) made no such promises, and are not
"money." A Federal Reserve Note is a debt obligation of the federal United States government, not
"money." The federal United States government and the U.S. Congress were not and have never been
authorized by the Constitution for the United States of America to issue currency of any kind, but only
lawful money, - gold and silver coin. It is essential that we comprehend the distinction between real
money, and paper money substitute. One cannot get rich by accumulating money substitutes, one can
only get deeper in debt. We the People no longer have any "money." Most Americans have not been paid
any "money" for a very long time, perhaps not in their entire life. Now do you comprehend why you feel
broke? Now, do you understand why you are "bankrupt," along with the rest of the country?
Federal Reserve Notes (FRN's) are unsigned checks written on a closed account. FRN's are an inflatable
paper system designed to create debt through inflation (devaluation of currency). Whenever there is an
increase of the supply of a money substitute in the economy without a corresponding increase in the
gold and silver backing, inflation occurs.
Inflation is an invisible form of taxation that irresponsible governments inflict on their citizens. The
Federal Reserve Bank who controls the supply and movement of FRN's has everybody fooled. They
have access to an unlimited supply of FRN's, paying only for the printing costs of what they need. FRN's
are nothing more than promissory notes for U.S. Treasury securities (T-Bills) - a promise to pay the debt
to the Federal Reserve Bank.
There is a fundamental difference between "paying" and "discharging" a debt. To pay a debt, you must
pay with value or substance (i.e. gold, silver, barter or a commodity). With FRN's, you can only
discharge a debt. You cannot pay a debt with a debt currency system. You cannot service a debt with a
currency that has no backing in value or substance. No contract in common law is valid unless it
involves an exchange of "good and valuable consideration." Unpayable debt transfers power and control
to the sovereign power structure that has no interest in money, law, equity or justice
because they have so much wealth already. Their lust is for power and control. Since the inception of
central banking, they have controlled the fates of nations.
The Federal Reserve System, is based on the Canon law and the principles of sovereignty protected in
the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In fact, the international bankers used a "Canon Law Trust" as
their model, adding stock and naming it a "Joint Stock Trust." The U.S. Congress had passed a law
making it illegal for any legal "person" to duplicate a "Joint Stock Trust" in 1873. The Federal Reserve
Act was legislated post-facto (1870), although post-facto laws are strictly forbidden by the Constitution.
(1:9:3).
The Federal Reserve System is a sovereign power structure separate and distinct from the federal United
States government. The Federal Reserve is a maritime lender, and/or maritime insurance underwriter to
the federal United States operating exclusively under Admiralty/Maritime law. The lender underwriter
bears the risks, and the Maritime law compelling specific performance in paying the interest, or
13
premiums are the same.
Assets of the debtor can also be hypothecated (to pledge something as a security without taking
possession of it) as security by the lender or underwriter. The Federal Reserve Act stipulated that the
interest on the debt was to be paid in gold. There was no stipulation in the Federal Reserve Act for ever
paying the principal.
Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free and clear of any liens or
mortgages until Federal Reserve Act (1913).
"Hypothecated" all property within the federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve, - in which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title, the U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was
registered as a "beneficiary" of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the federal United States
hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets and labor of their "subjects," the 14th.
Amendment U.S. citizens, to the Federal Reserve System. In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed
to extend the federal United States corporation all the credit "money substitute" it needed. Like any
other debtor, the federal United States government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors
as condition of the loan. Since the federal United States didn't have any assets, they assigned the private
property of their "economic slaves," the U.S. citizens, as collateral against the unpayable federal debt.
They also pledge the unincorporated federal territories, national parks and forests, birth certificates, and
nonprofit organizations, as collateral against the federal debt. All has already been transferred as
payment to the international bankers. Unwittingly, America has returned to its pre-revolution, feudal
roots whereby all land is held by a sovereign and the common people had no rights to hold allodial title
to property. Once again, We the People are the tenants and sharecroppers renting our own property
from a Sovereign in the guise of the Federal Reserve Bank. We the People have exchanged one master
for another.
This has been going on for over eighty years without the "informed" knowledge: of the American
people, without a voice protesting loud enough. Now it's easy to grasp why America is fundamentally
bankrupt. Why don't more people own their properties outright? Why are 90% of Americans mortgaged
to the hilt and have little or no assets after all debts and liabilities have been paid? Why does it feel like
you are working harder and harder and getting less and less? We are reaping what has been sown, and
the result of our harvest is a painful bankruptcy, and a foreclosure on American property, precious
liberties, and a way of life. Few of our elected representatives in Washington, D.C. Have dared to tell the
truth. The federal United States is bankrupt. Our children will inherit this unpayable debt, and the
tyranny to enforce paying it.
The United States went "Bankrupt" in 1933 and was declared so by President Roosevelt by Executive
Orders 6073, 6102, 6111, and 6260, (See: Senate Report 93-549, pages 187 & 594) under the "Trading
With The Enemy Act" (Sixty-Fifth Congress, Sess. I, Chs. 105, 106, October 6, 1917), and as codified
at 12 U.S.C.A. 95a.
The several States of the Union then pledged the faith and credit thereof to the aid of the National
Government, and formed numerous committees, such as the "Council of State Governments", "Social
Security Administration", etc., to purportedly deal with the contrived economic "Emergency" caused by
the bankruptcy. These Organizations operated under the "Declaration of Interdependence" of January
22, 1937, and published some of their activities in " Book Of The States."
NOTE: The Council of State Governments has now been absorbed into such things as the "National
Conference Of Commissioners On Uniform State Laws", whose Headquarters Office is located at 676
North St. Clair Street, Suite 1700, Chicago, Illinois 60611, and "all" being "members of the Bar", and
operating under a different "Constitution and by-laws" has promulgated, lobbied for, passed, adjudicated
and ordered the implementation and execution of their purported statutory provisions, to "help
implement international treaties of the United States or where world uniformity would be desirable."
(See: 1990/1991 Reference Book, National Council of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, pg. 2)
This is apparently what Robert Bork meant when he wrote "we are governed not by law or elected
representatives but by an unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable committee of lawyers applying no
14
will but their own." (See: The Tempting Of America, Robert H. Bork, pg. 130)
In view of Robert H. Bork's statement, it is more than worthy of note that there is an "Original" 13th
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution called the "Title of Nobility" Amendment that reads:
"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honor, or
shall, without the consent of congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of
any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a
citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or
either of them."
In January, 1810, Senator Philip Reed of Maryland proposed the "Title of Nobility" Amendment (History
of Congress, Proceedings of the Senate, p. 529-530). On April 27, 1810, the Senate voted to pass this
13th Amendment by a vote of 26 to 1; the House resolved in the affirmative 87 to 3; and the resolve was
sent to the States for ratification: By Dec. 10, 1812, twelve of the required thirteen States had ratified as
follows: Maryland, Dec. 25, 1810; Kentucky, Jan. 31, 1811; Ohio, Jan. 31, 1811; Delaware, Feb. 2,
1811; Pennsylvania, Feb. 6, 1811; New Jersey, Feb. 13, 1811; Vermont, Oct. 24, 1811; Tennessee, Nov.
21, 1811; Georgia, Dec. 13, 1811; North Carolina, Dec. 23, 1811; Massachusetts, Feb. 27, 1812;New
Hampshire, Dec. 10, 1812. Before a thirteenth State could ratify, the War of 1812 broke out and
interupted this very rapid move for ratification.
On May 13, 1813, the State of Connecticut failed to ratify this original 13th Amendment, leaving it to
Virginia to be the required 13th state to ratify. Virginia ratified with the March 12, 1819 publication of
the Laws of Virginia. Connecticut then published it in four separate editions of "The Public Statute Laws
of the State of Connecticut" as a part of the U.S. Constitution in 1821, 1824, 1835 and 1839. Then,
without record or explanation, it mysteriously disappeared from subsequent editions prior to the Civil
War between the states. However, printing by a legislature is prima facie evidence of ratification, and it
has been found to have been printed as part of the Constitution by many of the other states until after the
Civil War and into the Reconstruction period - when it mysteriously disappeared from all subsequent
printings, the last official publication found being the 1876 Laws of the Territory of Wyoming Frontis
Page, Amendment 13.
The Reorganization of the bankruptcy is located in Title 5 of United States Codes Annotated. The
"Explanation" at the beginning of 5 U.S.C.A. is most informative reading. The "Secretary of Treasury"
was appointed as the "Receiver" in Bankruptcy. (See: Reorganization Plan No. 26, 5 U.S.C.A. 903,
Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pg. 5967) Since a bankrupt loses control over his business, this
appointment to the "Office of Receiver" in bankruptcy had to have been made by the "creditors" who are
"foreign powers or principals".
The United States as Corporator, (22 U.S.C.A. 286E, et seq.) and "State" (C.R.S. 24-36- 104, C.R.S.
24-60-1301(h)) had declared "Insolvency." (See: 26 I.R.C. 165(g)(1), U.C.C. 1-201(23), C.R.S. 39-22--
103.5, Westfall vs. Braley, 10 Ohio 188, 75 Am. Dec. 509, Adams vs. Richardson, 337 S.W. 2d 911;
Ward vs. Smith, 7 Wall. 447) A permanent state of "Emergency" was instituted, formed and erected
within the Union through the contrivance, fraud and avarice of the International Financial Institutions,
Organizations, Corporations and Associations, including the Federal Reserve, their "fiscal and
depository agent" -- whose member banks are "privately owned corporations". 22 U.S.C.A. 286d
The government, by becoming a corporator, (See: 22 U.S.C.A. 286e) lays down its sovereignty and
takes on that of a private citizen. It can exercise no power which is not derived from the corporate
charter. (See: The Bank of the United States vs. Planters Bank of Georgia, 6 L. Ed. (9 Wheat) 244, U.S.
vs. Burr, 309 U.S. 242) The real party in interest is not the de jure "United States of America" or
"State", but "The Bank" and "The Fund." (22 U.S.C.A. 286, et seq., C.R.S. 11-60-103) The acts
committed under fraud, force and seizures are many times done under "Letters of Marque and Reprisal"
i.e. "recapture." (See: 31 U.S.C.A. 5323)
On March 17, 1993, on page 1303 of Volume 33 of the Congressional Record, Congressman Traficant
stated:
"Mr. Speaker, We are now here in Chapter 11. Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over
15
the greatest reorganization of any bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government."
This is an amazing confession as it applies, not only to "Members of Congress," but also to the Secretary
of the Treasury as the "Receiver in bankruptcy" and to all state and federal "officials" who act under the
de facto authority of that bankrupt Foreign Corporation known as the United States as trustees (foreign
agents) for foreign principals. Trustees work for the creditors of a bankruptcy and are agents for foreign
principals. In this case the creditors are the Federal Reserve Banks, the International Monetary Fund
(the Fund) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the Bank).
It is worthy of note that an Attorney/Representative is required to file a "Foreign Agents Registration
Statement" pursuant to 22 U.S.C.A. 611c(1)(iv), 612 & 613), when representing the interests of a
Foreign Principal or Power. (See: Rabinowitz vs. Kennedy, 376 U.S. 605, 11 L. Ed. 2d 940, 18
U.S.C.A. 219 & 951)
It is said that the economic Crash of '29 and the Great Depression was caused by the Federal Reserve
withholding currency from circulation and raising interest rates after an inflationary easy money policy in
the early 1920s. The Federal Reserve's fear of excessive speculation led it into a far too deflationary
policy in the late 1920s: "destroying the village in order to save it."
The U.S. economy was already past the peak of the business cycle when the stock market crashed in
October of 1929. So it looks as though the Federal Reserve did "overdo it"--did raise interest rates too
much, and bring on the recession that they had hoped to avoid.
This contrived "emergency" created numerous abuses and usurpations, and abridgments of
Constitutionally delegated Powers and Authority as clearly stated in Senate Report 93-549 (1973):
"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40
years, [75 years now in 2008] freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution
have in varying degrees been abridged by laws brought into force by statutes of national emergency."
According to American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edition, Sections 71 and 82, NO "emergency" justifies a
violation of any Constitutional provision. Arguendo, "Supremacy Clause" and "Separation of Powers." It
is clearly admitted in Senate Report No. 93-549 that abridgment has occurred.
On March 6, 1933 the federal government got the Conference of Governors to pledge the faith and
credit of the several States of the Union and their citizenry to the aid of the National Government, (see
pp. 18 - 24 of The Public Papers And Addresses of Franklin Roosevelt, Volume II, The Year Of Crisis,
March 6, 1933) for what they openly admitted to doing. They encouraged the President to ask for and
use extra-constitutional powers during the "emergency" that continues to this day.
"Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish
restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted IN a period of
grave emergency. Its grants of power to the Federal Government and its limitations of the power of the
States were determined in the light of emergency and they are NOT altered by emergency." - Home
Building & Loan Assoc. v Blaisdell 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
"Time has proven the discernment of our ancestors; for even these provisions, expressed in such plain
English words, that it would seem the ingenuity of man could not evade them, are now, after the lapse of
more than seventy years, sought to be avoided. Those great and good men foresaw that troublous times
would arise, when rulers and people would become restive under restraint, and seek by sharp and
decisive measures to accomplish ends deemed just and proper; and that the principles of constitutional
liberty would be in peril, unless established by irrepealable law. The history of the world had taught them
that what was done in the past might be attempted in the future. The Constitution of the United States is
a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all
classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious
consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended
during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or
16
despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the
Constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence; as has been
happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority. -– Supreme Court (1866)
Ex Parte Milligan 71 U.S. 2
This property, the faith and credit of the citizenry of the several States, was the collateral accepted by
the creditors (foreign principals) so the federal government could borrow more Federal Reserve Notes
(private bank credit) and keep operating under reorganization. Roosevelt issued Executive Orders 6073,
6102, 6111 and 6260 within days of his inauguration Mar 4, 1933.
6073 issued on March 10, 1933, called the "bank holiday" which closed the doors of the bankrupt
government chartered banks (they were bankrupt as a whole).
6102 issued on April 5, 1933, prohibited "hoarding" gold and required people to turn it (their property)
in to the Federal Reserve Banks (the creditors).
6111 issued on April 20, 1933, prohibited people from exporting gold (because now it wasn't theirs
anymore).
6260 issued on August 20, 1933, combined 6102 and 6111.
All this is totally unlawful unless someone other than the people owned the people's possessions. Yet,
they are still being pledged as collateral, secured by UCC commercial liens, which are still being
monetized as "debt money" by the Federal Reserve, to be surrendered if they needed to be under the
orders of the bankruptcy, and thereby have deprived the people of clear title to their property under
color of a contrived emergency."
These proclamations gave force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to
the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of
American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of unconstitutional powers,
taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional
process.
Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control
the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize
and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict
travel; and in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens. The several States
were seduced into the new policy in 1939, with Roosevelt's promise of federal grants-in-aid. Federal
Revenue Sharing (31 U.S.C. ( 6700 et seq.) is the modern version of the grants-in-aid program. In
return for these grants, the states would agree to uphold and maintain the pledge of life, labor and
property of their respective citizenry as surety for the debt obligations of the Federal government. The
politicians of these respective states gladly complied, because they viewed this as an opportunity to
increase their own political power, letting the next generation of office holders worry over the long term
consequences of their acts.
On May 23, 1933, Congressman Louis T. McFadden, brought formal charges against the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, the Comptroller of the Currency and the Secretary of
the United States Treasury for numerous criminal acts, including but not limited to, CONSPIRACY,
FRAUD, UNLAWFUL CONVERSION, AND TREASON. The petition for Articles of Impeachment
was thereafter referred to the Judiciary Committee, and has yet to be acted upon. (See: the
Congressional Record, May 23, 1933, pp. 4055-4058.)
Such persons fraudulently swore an Oath to uphold, defend and preserve the sovereignty of the Nation
and the several Republican States of the Union, and breached the Duty to protect the People/Citizens
and their Posterity from fraud, imposition, avarice and stealthy encroachment. (See: Atkins et al. vs.
U.S., 556 F.2d 1028, pg. 1072, 1074, The Tempting Of America, supra, pgs. 155 - 159, also see, 5
U.S.C.A. 5305 & 5335, Senate Report No. 93-549, pgs. 69 - 71, C.R.S. 24-75-101)
Such principles as "Fraud and Justice never dwell together" (Wingate's Maxims 680), and "A right of
action cannot arise out of fraud." (Broom's maxims 297, 729; Cowper's Reports 343; 5 Scott's New
Reports 558; 10 Mass. 276; 38 Fed. 800) These basic principles may be too high a thought concept for
17
our judges, legislators, and public servants, as are "Due Process", "Just Compensation" and "Justice"
itself. Honor is earned by honesty and integrity, not by or under false and fraudulent pretenses. The color
of the cloth one wears will not cover-up the usurpations, lies, trickery and deceptions.
In 1938, the whole country was bankrupted! The creditors (foreign powers) seized ownership of the
flag, State governments, their laws and constitutions, including every last comma and period, and the
whole country and its citizens! It placed us in peonage. The 1937 Edition of the Book of the States
openly declared that the people engaged in such activities as the Farming/Agro Related Industry had
already been reduced to mere feudal "Tenants" on their Land, see the Book Of The States, Book II,
Volume II, 1937, p 155. It is the most humungous fraud ever perpetrated in human history. But
"government officials", both State and federal, went along with it, and continue to keep it all secret from
the American people.
In 1940, Congress passed the "Buck Act", (4 U.S.C.S. Sections 105-113). In Section 110(e), the Act
authorized any department of the federal government to create a "Federal area" for imposition of the
"Public Salary Tax Act" of 1939. This tax is imposed at 4 U.S.C.S. Sec. 111. The Social Security Board
had already created a "Federal area" overlay.
Thus the obvious question arises: What is a "Federal area"? A "Federal area" is any area designated by
any agency, department, or establishment of the federal government. This includes the Social Security
areas designated by the Social Security Administration, any public housing area that has federal funding,
a road that has federal funding, and almost everything that the federal government touches through any
type of aid. (See Springfield v. Kenny, 104 N.E. 2d 65 (1951 App.)) This "Federal area" purportedly
attaches to anyone who has a Social Security Number. Through this mechanism, the federal government
usurped the Sovereignty of the People, as well as the Sovereignty of the several states, by creating
"Federal areas" within the boundaries of the states under the purported authority of Article 4, Section 3,
Clause 2 (4:3:2) in the federal constitution.
Therefore, all U.S. citizens [i.e. citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the
Union, are classified as "property", as franchisees of the federal government, and as an "individual
entity". (See Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.
Under the "Buck Act" the federal government has created "Federal areas" within the boundaries of all
the several States. These areas are similar to any territory that the federal government acquires through
purchase, conquest or treaty, thereby imposing federal territorial law upon all people in these "federal
areas". Federal territorial law is evidenced by the Executive Branch's yellow fringed U.S. flag displayed
in schools, public buildings and most courtrooms.
A flag with a fringe is an ensign, a military flag, and under the Law of the Flag implies an Admiralty
Merchant Equity Law, Military Law, or Martial Law Jurisdiction, thereby suspending Constitutional
Law. It is NOT a Title 4 U.S.C. 1 United States Flag. Within a courtroom, the bar is emblematic of the
rail of a ship, the court judge(s) the captain(s) of said ship, interpreting the laws according to the
jurisdiction decreed by the displayed flag. BE AWARE!
A military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States pursuant to U.S.C. Chapter 1,
2, and 3; Executive Order No. 10834, August 21, 1959, 24 F.R. 6865, except that it has a YELLOW
FRINGE, bordered on three sides. The President of the United States designates this deviation from the
regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF of the Armed forces.
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." -- Thomas
Paine.
In 1966, Congress being severely compromised, passed the "Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966, by which the
entire taxing and monetary system i.e. "Essential Engine" (See: Federalist Papers No. 31) was placed
under the Uniform Commercial Code. (See: Public Law 89-719, Legislative History, pg. 3722, also see,
C.R.S. 5-1- 106).
The Uniform Commercial Code was, of course, promulgated by the National Conference of
Commissioners On Uniform State Laws in collusion with the American Law Institute for the "banking
and business interests." (See: Handbook Of The National Conference of Commissioners On Uniform
18
State Laws, (1966) Ed. pgs. 152 & 153).
Things steadily grew worse and on March 28, 1970, President Nixon issued Proclamation No. 3972,
declaring an "emergency" because the Postal Employees struck against the de facto government for
higher pay, due to inflation of the paper "Bills of Credit." (See: Senate Report No. 93-549, pg. 596)
Nixon placed the U.S. Postal Department under the control of the "Department of Defense." (See:
Department Of The Army Field Manual, FM 41-10 (1969))
The contrived "emergency" has created numerous abuses and usurpations, and abridgements of
delegated Powers and Authority as stated in Senate Report 93-549:
The statements heard in the Federal and State Tribunals, on numerous occasions, that Constitutional
arguments are "immaterial", "frivolous" etc., is based upon concealment, furtherance and compounding
of the frauds and "Emergency" created and sustained by the "Expatriated", ALIENS of the United
Nations and its Organizations, Corporations and Associations. (See: Letter, Insight Magazine, February
18, 1991, pg. 7, Lowell L. Flanders, President, U.N. Staff Union, New York) 8 U.S.C.A. 1481 is one of
the controlling statutes on expatriation as is 22 U.S.C.A. 611 - 613 and 50 U.S.C.A. 781.
This of course complies with "Silent Weapons For Quiet Wars", Research Technical Manual TMSW7905.1,
which discloses a declaration of war upon the American people. (See: pg. 3 & 7). The
Internal Revenue Service entered into a "service agreement" with the U.S. Treasury Department (See:
Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pg. 5987, Reorganization Plan No. 26) and the Agency for
International Development, pursuant to Treasury Delegation Order No. 91. The Agency For
International Development is an International paramilitary operation (See: Department Of The Army
Field Manual, (1969) FM 41-10, pgs. 1-4, Sec. 1-7(b) & 1-6, Section 1- -10(7)(c)(1), 22 U.S.C.A. 284),
and includes such activities as "Assumption of full or partial executive, legislative, and judicial authority
over a country or area." (See: FM 41-10, pg. 1-7, Section 110(7)(c)(4)) also see, Agreement Between
The United Nations And The United States Of America Regarding The Headquarters Of The United
Nations, Section 7(d) & (8), 22 U.S.C.A. 287 (1979 Ed.) at pg. 241). It is to be further observed that
the "Agreement" regarding the Headquarters District of the United Nations was NOT agreed to (See:
Congressional Record - Senate, December 13, 1967, Mr. Thurmond), and is illegally in the Country in
the first instant.
The 1985 Edition of the Department Of Army Field Manual, FM 41 10 further describes the
International "Civil Affairs" operations. At page 3-6 it is admitted that the Agency for International
Development is autonomous and under direction of the International Development Cooperation Agency,
and at page 3-8, that the operation is "paramilitary." The International Organization(s) intents and
purposes was to promote, implement and enforce a "DICTATORSHIP OVER FINANCE IN THE
UNITED STATES." (See: Senate Report No. 93-549, pg. 186)
It appears from the documentary evidence that the Internal Revenue Service Agents etc., are "Agents of
a Foreign Principal" within the meaning and intent of the "Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938."
They are directed and controlled by the corporate "Governor" of The Fund" a/k/a "Secretary of
Treasury" (See: Public Law 94-564, supra, pg. 5942, U.S. Government Manual 1990/91, pgs. 480 &
481, 26 U.S.C.A. 7701(a)(11), Treasury Delegation Order No. 150-10), and the corporate "Governor"
of "The Bank" 22 U.S.C.A. 286 & 286a, acting as "information service employees 22 U.S.C.A.
611(c)(ii), and have been and do now "solicit, collect, disburse or dispense contribution (Tax - pecuniary
contribution, Black's Law Dict. 5th ed.), loans, money or other things of value for or in interest of such
foreign principal 22 U.S.C.A. 611(c)(iii), and they entered into agreements with a Foreign Principal
pursuant to Treasury Delegation Order No. 91 i.e. the "Agency For International Development." (See:
22 U.S.C.A. 611(c)(2))
Among other reasons for lack of authority to act, such as a Foreign Agents Registration Statement, 22
U.S.C.A. 612 and 18 U.S.C.A. 219 & 951, military authority cannot be imposed into civil affairs. (See:
Department Of The Army Pamphlet 27100- 70, Military Law Review, Vol. 70)
An unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable oligarchy of expatriates and aliens, who fraudulently
claim that they intend to establish "rational and equitable international economic relations", yet openly
19
declared that they no longer "stabilize the value of the dollar" nor "assure the value of the coin and
currency of the United States" is purely misrepresentation, deceit and fraud. (See: Public Law 95-147,
91 Stat. 1227, at pg. 1229)
This was augmented by Public Law 101-167, 103 Stat. 1195, which discloses massive appropriations of
rehypothecated debt credit for the general welfare and common defense of other Foreign Powers,
including "Communist" countries or satellites, International control of natural and human resources, etc.
etc.. A "Resource" is a claim of "property" and when related to people constitutes "slavery."
The covert procedure used to implement and enforce these Foreign Constitutions, Laws, Procedures,
Rules, Regulations, etc., has not yet been fully collected and assimilated nor presented as evidence to
establish seditious collusion and conspiracy. Our patience and tolerance for those who pervert the very
necessary and basic foundations of society has been pushed to insufferable levels. They have
"fundamentally" changed the form and substance of the de jure Republican form of Government
guaranteed to each State under Article 4, Sec. 4 of the U.S. Constitution, exhibited a willful and wanton
disregard for the Rights, Safety and Property of others, evinced a despotic design to reduce the people
to slavery, peonage and involuntary servitude, under a fraudulent, tyrannical, seditious foreign oligarchy,
with intent and purpose to institute, erect and form a "Dictatorship" over all Citizens and their Posterity.
Pactions, Confederations, and Alliances, and under pretense of "emergency", which they themselves
created, promoted and furthered, formed a multitude of offices and retained those of alien allegiance to
perpetuate their frauds and to eat out the substance of the good and productive people of this Land.
They have trespassed on our Lives, Liberties, Properties and Families and endangered our Peace, Safety,
Welfare and Dignity.
In the field of law we got removal of federal common law with the Erie Railroad Co. v Tompkins case,
304 US 64; and the hodgepodging of the jurisdictions of Law and Equity together, which is known as
"One Form Of Action"; as two of the main insanities dictated by the new owners. Law and Equity does
not mix any better than oil and water.
Sometime between 1958 and 1970 admiralty was mixed in with the "One Form of Action" "civil
actions". (See Rule 1 in the 1958 and 1970 Editions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in Title 28
United States Code.)
In Federalist Paper No. 83 Hamilton expressed, "My convictions are equally strong that great
advantages result from the separation of the equity and the law jurisdiction ..." The Constitution
establishes the three jurisdictions as separate in Article III.
There is no Constitutional authority for operating in bankruptcy under Martial Law/Rule. The
legislative, executive, and judicial branches no longer exist, as the de jure government has fraudulently
been dissolved and the entire country has been received in bankruptcy by the Fund (IMF) and World
Bank through a series of "emergency war powers" acts.
The intent and objective of the bankruptcy was not to resolve any "emergency"; it was to create one for
the express purpose of changing the governmental, social, economic and industrial character of the de
jure society, to infringe and abrogate inalienable Rights, steal and alienate the birth Rights of the People,
impair the obligations of honest contracts, to defraud and obtain a benefit therefrom, create turbulence
and contention, overthrow, and to establish a corrupt totalitarian oligarchy and combination, in direct
contravention to the Law of the Land, and against the Peace, Dignity and Security of We The People
(the real State).
Because the States also are now bankrupt entities means that now not even the (de facto) State courts
have any sovereignty; no enforceable jurisdiction, and can only invite participants into court! State
courts are now only courts of mediation. Fines collected by these courts go to the Federal Reserve
Banks, the depository agents for the Fund and the Bank. Thus, administrative agents in this State are
also acting as trustees and agents for foreign principals, and are required to register as such.
IF "public officials" represent the people under the Constitution, they can only collect, use, and be paid
in Constitutional money, gold and silver. And they can only operate at common law in all criminal
matters except for Maritime contracts.
20
Federal Reserve Banks are private banks; check the government and private pages of the telephone
book to see where they are listed. IF "public officials" use Federal Reserve "Notes," or funds reducible
only to Federal Reserve "Notes" in public business, they are using non-redeemable, dishonored,
impaired, depreciated, rehypothecated, interagency, international bills of debt/credit, and have to be
operating only a de facto government, which is treason to their oaths of office and violations of their
agency obligations to the sovereign people, and in this case, for foreign principals. See: Who Is Running
America? for a listing of the major shareholders of the Federal Reserve Banks, and the Staff Report of
the Committee on Banking, Currency and Housing, House of Representatives, 94th Congress, 2nd
Session, August 1976, titled "Federal Reserve Directors: A Study of Corporate and Banking Influence"
which delineates the interlocking directorships of the shareholders.
AGAIN - "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." --
Thomas Paine
This Affiant did not give permission to ANYONE to pledge his life, liberty, body, property, and labor
for someone else's benefit, i.e., the federal government's debt. By federal government is meant that
totally bankrupt, functionally dead at law, foreign municipal corporation domiciled in Washington, D.C.
called the "United States"
"... the United States is to be regarded as a body politic and corporate. ... It is suggested that the United
States is to be regarded as a domestic corporation, so far as the State of New York is concerned. We
think this contention has no support in reason or authority. ... The United States is a foreign corporation
in relation to a State." in re Merriam's Estate, 36 NE 505, 506 22.
That the pledge was made anyway is fraud, because no one asked this Affiant his permission or even told
him about it. Security for a debt can never be lawfully obtained by fraud. "Fraud vitiates the most
solemn contracts. documents and even judgments" U.S. v Throckmorton, 98 US 61
By continuing to administer this perfidy, "public officials" are committing treason against not only the
Constitution, but against truth, rightness, and the real Sovereigns of the nation -- We the People.
"There is no position which depends on clearer principle than that every act of a delegated authority,
contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised is void. No legislative act, therefore,
contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than
his principal; that the servant is above the master; that the representatives of the people are superior to
the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not
authorize, but what they forbid." Federalist Paper No. 78 Alexander Hamilton
All across America people are becoming aware of this fraud being perpetrated upon them by de facto
"public officials" who continue to administer this perfidy -- typical examples are:
From a Resolution Adopted by unanimous vote on June 17, 1995, by the Republican Party of Texas
State Executive Committee: "Whereas there has occurred continuous breach of trust, duty and
obligation imposed under authority of the Constitution of the United States of America, resulting in a
continued abridgement of the Rights, Privileges, Immunities, and Liberties of Citizens and others, all
committed under pretense of a continuing national crisis and furtherance of emergency conditions; and
"Whereas, our forefathers recognizing these same conditions wrote to the British Parliament and King of
Great Britain in the Declaration of Rights of 1774:
"Whereas, since the close of the last war, the British Parliament, claiming a power of right to bind the
people of America, by statute, in all cases whatsoever, hath in some acts expressly imposed taxes on
them, and in others, under various pretenses, but in fact for the purpose of raising a revenue, hath
imposed rates and duties payable in these colonies established a board of commissioners, with
unconstitutional powers, and extended the jurisdiction of courts of admiralty, not only for collecting the
said duties, but for the trial of causes merely arising within the body of a country ...
"Today under pretence of emergency and reorganization the mischief has been recreated and reinstituted
within the Nation and several States of the Union, and has once again left the people without any plain,
speedy or adequate remedy, and is wholly contrary to the true original extent and end of the Union and
civil Government as ordained and established by the people; ..."
21
From a Resolution of the California Republican Assembly adopted on March 26, 1995 Number 395.1
"Resolved: The California Republican Assembly at the Annual Convention in San Diego, March 26,
1995 does hereby determine to inform members of State and federal elected and appointed offices that
the United States of America is presently under War and Emergency Powers and has been for 62 [now
75 ] years; be it further
"Resolved: That the California Republican Assembly will support only men and women who are willing
to become aware of the usurpation of the power of the United States Constitution and who are
committed to restoring our Constitution to its rightful place as the Supreme Law of the Land." There are
numerous other examples that could be cited here. But, it is enough to say that this Affiant is far from
being alone in his concern for the State of affairs that has developed under the fraudulent and contrived
national "emergency" and the Martial Law/Rule that has been secretly imposed upon them without their
knowledge or informed consent.
And, as Will Rogers once said, "We have people in government who should not be allowed to play with
matches."
Please Read This Statement From Thomas Jefferson:
Thomas Jefferson
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies . . .
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by
inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] . . .
will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent
their fathers conquered . . . The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the
people, to whom it properly belongs." -- Thomas Jefferson -- The Debate Over The Recharter Of
The Bank Bill, (1809)
America has become completely bankrupt in world leadership, financial credit and its reputation for
courage, vision and human rights. This is an undeclared economic war. Bankruptcy, and economic
slavery of the most corrupt order!
Wake up America! Take back your country.
As a Creditor of UNITED STATES and all other sub-corporations private and public, you are owed
equity and interest for the gold and all property that you “loaned” them starting March 9, 1933 to date.
There is NO MONEY.
In order to start getting your equity back, you must NOTICE your DEBTORS of what you expect them
to do and the consequences if they do not comply, but first you must ESTABLISH THE LAW. Your
treaty is a contract to the WHOLE WORLD and tells the world what you want and how things are
going to be done in this CREDITOR/DEBTOR relationship. This file contains all the documents you
will need to PERFECT YOUR LIEN and TAKE BACK YOUR EQUITY.
It seems as though the world has gone mad! What can be done? Amazingly, we have been mislead. We
have been taught that we can control government by voting. The founder of the Rothschild dynasty,
Mayer Amschel Bauer, told the secret of controlling the government of a nation over 200 years ago. He
22
said, "Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes its laws." Get the
picture? Your freedom hinges first on the nation's banks and money system. That's why we advocate
using the Liberty Dollar, to understand the monetary and banking system.
Freedom is connected with Debt Elimination for each individual. Not only does this end personal debt, it
places the people first in line as creditors to the National Debt ahead of the banks. They don't wish for
you to know this. It has to do with recognizing WHO you really are.You can take back your power and
stop volunteering to pay taxes to the collection agency for the BEAST. You can take back that which is
yours, always has been yours and use it to pay off your debts.
AMERICAN LAND OWNERSHIP
What I'm trying to convey in this, is that laying of the foundation for how this country operates today.
Not that you can go into a court and present these arguments today, you can't.. If you don't know the
power structures beginnings then you are doomed forever to repeat the same mistakes as those that
preceded you in their quest to seek justice. To truly win in the situation there must be a concerted effort
of at least 70 percent of the people to overturn the present state of affairs. That will not happen because
of the ignorance of the masses that are so easily led by those in power. The people have truly forsaken
the true Sovereign, namely the Lord Almighty. Without going into the so called "religion" aspect, let me
just pose some questions. Did not the Lord Almighty create the land? Yes. Did the Pope create the land?
No!
Did the King create the land? No! Did any other man create the land? No! Did any group of men called
State create the land? No! Now that I have answered the questions for you then here are some that you
are to answer. Then who is the real owner of the land? Did not the creator of the land bestow it upon all
men and their heirs to be stewards of the land, granting to no one man or group of men, absolute
dominion over any land? When man dies who does the land escheat to? For those not familiar with that
term escheat, it means who does the land go back to when all men die? Your
answers can only show that no Pope, King, Man himself, or group of men called State can ever claim
they own the land and charge another man a fee to live on that land. I'm showing you the progression
from a certain period of time that certain mere mortal men have decided that they were granted certain
rights above all other men in claiming dominion over all land. The pecking Order starting from the top in
controlling land are; 1. The Pope 2. The Kings of all lands, but we are talking specifically England here.
3. Knights 4. Lord Proprietors of the King in America 5. Royal Governors of
the King, in America 6. Administrative officers of the corporate colonies of America 7.
Freeholders/Freemen of granted property in America. 8. The officers of the newly constituted States of
America which, gave way to the; 9.
Officers of the United States which now reverses 8 and 9 due to the States joining Union. 10. The
County officers which are the corporate instrumentalities of the State. 11. Simple man, meaning you,
reading this. You, are so far removed from the land that the Lord Almighty gave to all men, that
essentially you have no claim but as a squatter on someone else's land and have no control whatsoever in
saying you have the right to not pay taxes for the use of the Pope's land. But the Pope is the figure head
of a corporation called the Vatican consisting of men forming a " WHICH THE LORD ALMIGHTY
NEVER CREATED A RELIGION", claiming complete dominion over all land in the world. When the
Pope dies another of these men are chosen as the new Pope. There is one little quirk that needs to be
mentioned. That is, a group of men exist that has control of even the Vatican, therefore every chain
holder on down to number 11 on the list is controlled. That group of men are called Bankers. The Pope
and the King, in 1213, on to a period just past 1218, lost a lot of money fighting each other and drew on
a group of men, one in particular, that loaned to each side money. When neither could pay the loans
back and defaulted, the money lender foreclosed. He foreclosed in agreement by not taking all the
property, except for England, as is done today on foreclosures, but an arrangement was made that
satisfied the so called "holy trinity" that is espoused below. That "Holy Trinity" is mentioned in the
23
Treaty of 1783. Who do you think the Holy Trinity consists? So the list above from 1 to 11 needs
another entity. I did not put him in so I could make it clear who is in order of claim to the land you live
on as a tenant. Now number one has been replaced by the Banker and everyone has shifted down a
notch. Hello number twelve, how do you like your position on the list? Well, if people reject allegiance
to the True Lord and cling to another and pledge allegiance to another then you deserve to pay those
that allow you, through privilege, to live on their land. You gave up that RIGHT to live on land of the
True Land Owner without even a fee, except to abide by His Laws and not that of mere mortal man
such as yourself. Until you understand this, you will, continue to be nothing but a slave to the system
that perpetrated a fraud on you and your family tree for centuries. No, you cannot attack unless the
numbers are sufficient. Yes, the below is true despite what any one says to degrade this research of many
years. These people that degrade have either an ignorance level so high that no amount of education will
correct it or they are in league with a higher number on the pecking order that wants to keep the status
quo. These men are the only ones that the Lord Almighty wished woe upon in the Bible for "hiding the
key of knowledge," in Luke and Matthew. You can look at it this way as relates to present day. The
Banker remains in complete control. I don't mean your local banker, but those that control all banks in
America and the world. They operate with straw men many deep so as to keep the people ignorant as to
what is going on. Look at the list above to see how many straw men exist. This is the same operation
that many people get into by creating so many corporations that you never know just who is the
controlling man. You may see this on government stories where the detective says he traced back
through a tree of corporations and got lost in the many branches and could not find who really owns the
contraband. As I said, the power brokers control every lawyer and judge, who are also lawyers, in this if
not all other judges in the world because without them the fraud could not be carried out. Have you ever
heard of an honest trial where justice is dispensed the American man or woman who runs afoul of "the
System," even when he is innocent? Where do you think all the money the private IRS collects goes?
Maybe to the credit of the Straw man # 9 above? Credit to whom? Just follow the ladder back up to the
top, and remember the original numbers have all dropped one notch down to make room for whom?
Many of you are aware that the laws of this nation and it's states, were made to be in compliance and
submission to the laws of England, only modified by state and federal law. You will see in this last
Chapter state statutes from just a few of the original colonies, that this is the case. Are these what are
called ancient statutes? Yes. However, since the king's Corporation is alive and well as are his heirs, so is
his Trust and the law used to create and govern it. The law that governs his Trust can only be amended,
no law could be enacted contrary to the king's will and cestui que trust, the main corporate sole where
office is always found, the Crown. The king's practice of granting lands in this country to
those loyal to him continues, along with their land grants being protected by state ancient statutes which
are still on the books. We are governed by the king's nobles just as in times of old England, self
proclaimed nobles, and corporate trusts. They rule this country and the world. The huge corporations
have been granted power and liberty not known by the common man. The nobles, real and the created,
occupy their possessions as fiduciaries and trusties of the king's grants; only if they remain loyal to the
system, their privilege and life style are their reward. You will see that the Church of England was
granted lands in this country and their lands are protected by corporate privilege, through trusts and fee
simple title. As I have stated before, the king receives the gain for his business venture here in the United
States, as he does with all his corporations. A portion of the fines and taxes we pay today go right back
to the sovereign, the king of England, and his heirs and/or successors as I pointed out in previous
chapters of, "The United States Is Still A British Colony".
ALL that Territory or Tract of ground, situate, lying, and being within our Dominions in
America,....(listed known boundaries) .... AND moreover, all Veins, Mines, and Quarries, as well
discovered as not discovered, of Gold, Silver, Gems, and precious Stones, and all other, whatsoever be
it, of Stones, Metals, or any other thing whatsoever found or to be found within the Country, Isles,
Limits aforesaid;" The Carolina Charter, 1663.
SAVING always, the Faith, Allegiance, and Sovereign Dominion due to us, our heirs and Successors, for
24
the same; and Saving also, the right, title, and interest of all and every our Subjects of the English Nation
which are now Planted within the Limits bounds aforesaid, if any be;..." The Carolina Charter, 1663
"YIELDlNG AND PAYING yearly, to us, our heirs and Successors, for the same, the yearly Rent of
Twenty Marks of Lawful money of England, at the Feast of All Saints, yearly, forever, The First payment
thereof to begin and be made on the Feast of All Saints which shall be in the year of Our Lord One
thousand six hundred Sixty and five; AND also, the fourth part of all Gold and Silver Ore which, with
the limits aforesaid, shall, from time to time, happen to be found." The Carolina Charter, 1663
The below statute contains a wealth of information, it is just another example of who owns the land in
this country. The first thing I want you to see is, Corporation is large case C, proper noun, referring to
the main Corporation, the United States Corporation, also made clear by the end of the first sentence.
Notice also, that even the Corporation (the United States government)doesn't claim Allodial title,
because that office found is with the king, the government has only been vested with fee simple title
through the Corporate Charters of the Crown, as amended by the 1783 Treaty of Peace and resulting
1787 Constitution. The king can only pass Allodial title to his heirs, no one else. This is why the highest
title the government can pass is fee simple.
Also, notice that the Corporation can divest any and all occupiers of the land of any title or deed they
may hold, transfer the land to the Corporation, in which it holds the land in fee simple title, and the title
previously held by individuals or State has its title quieted (divested) and office found, then reversion
back to the Corporation. Now if you will recall, the information I found concerning an act George
Washington enacted, wherein Washington extended the jurisdiction and control of
the District of Columbia. He created District States that overlaid the States.
16 USC Sec. 831x TITLE 16 CHAPTER 12A
Sec. 831x. Condemnation proceedings; institution by Corporation; venue
-STATUTE- "The Corporation may cause proceedings to be instituted for the acquisition by
condemnation of any lands, easements, or rights-of-way which, in the opinion of the Corporation, are
necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter. The proceedings shall be instituted in the United
States district court for the district in which the land, easement, right-of-way, or other interest, or any
part thereof, is located, and such court shall have full jurisdiction to divest the complete title to the
property sought to be acquired out of all persons or claimants and vest the same in the
United States in fee simple, and to enter a decree quieting the title thereto in the United States of
America. Also, see below: 40A-2 sec. 3 "Eminent domain", N.C. statute.
Before we move on to the action taken by George Washington, you need to understand that the legal
term fee simple is now a metaphor, just as the legal term United States. It is given lip service today in
relation to the common man, and has another meaning when used in relation to the Crown or the main
sub Corporation, the United States, with its seat being the District of Columbia. When dealing with land
ownership you have to use the definition at law that governs the Crown, not the metaphors created later
by his barristers, to con the common man into believing he/she has allodial, or fee simple title to the
land. All that is necessary to know the condition you own your land, if you think have allodial, fee simple
title, or fee tail title, is ask yourself one question.
Is there a tax imposed on the land you claim to own? If a tax is or can be levied, you DO NOT own the
land, because if you fail to pay the tax, the land is reclaimed by the Corporation, by alienation, and
reversion. Also, under the institutional law of the Crown, that came with the conquest of Britain by
William the Conqueror, you could not be charged a tax on the land if you had fee simple title, it could
not be diminished in any way. The fee was payment by the king for the sworn loyalty of the lords and
knights to fight for the king, in his wars of Conquest, later changed to a monetary fee, to pay soldiers to
fight in the wars. King Edward I began the redefining of the legal term fee simple. Tenthly, He made that
great Alteration in Estates from what they were formerly, by Statute Westminster 2. cap. 1. whereby
Estates of Fee-Simple, conditional at Common Law, were turn'd into Estates-Tail, not removable from
the Issue by the ordinary Methods of Alienation; and upon this Statute, and for the Qualifications hereof,
25
are the Superstructures built of 4 H. 7. cap. 32, 32 H. 8. and 33 H. 8." The History of the Common Law
of England by Matthew Hale 1713
Those living on your land under fee tail or a lessor title, via deed to the land would pay the king's tax. As
a metaphor, as applied today, you can be charged a tax when you are told you have fee simple title if you
are a common man. The Corporation's holdings are not taxed depending on the Corporate Charter
granted by the government, or if you have a trust that contains fee simple title, with tax protection, you
could be protected legally, but you still don't own the land, when the life of the trust expires, or is mis
handled by the trusties, it reverts back to the corporate sole, through alienation and office found, or by
confiscation due to delinquent tax obligations. So any fee simple title you may have comes by legal right,
not sovereign grant. This is the difference between the tenants on the land and the Corporation. Again if
you are talking about the Corporation or any of its holdings, its fee simple title is not taxed, and is by
sovereign grant from the king, enhanced by Conquest, as his successor and trustee over his holdings.
George Washington's thought on Independence from the king was echoed by many of our fore fathers.
In May, 1775, Washington said: 'If you ever hear of me joining in any such measure as separation from
Great Britain, you have my leave to set me down for everything wicked'- He also said: 'It is not the wish
or interest of the government [meaning Massachusetts], or of any other upon this continent, separately
or collectively, to set up for independence'"
Ingersoll, North American Review, CLV. No.2, August, 1892, p. 183, also quote in Sources of the
Constitution of the United States, c. Ellis Stevens, 1927, page 36.
Now to the Act of Washington, and for those of you who have not seen this, the Act that made the
reclaiming and managing of the kings Corporation possible, and made possible the end run of the 1787
Constitution.
STATE VS. DISTRICT, DID THE 1787 CONSTITUTION SURVIVE Fall 1997
"How was this accomplished, in reading the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol I, 1789-1897 I
discovered the following:
Gentlemen of the Senate: Pursuant to the powers vested in me by the act entitled "An act repealing after
the last day of June next the duties heretofore laid upon distilled spirits imported from abroad and laying
others in their stead, and also upon spirits distilled within the United States, and for appropriating the
same," I have thought fit to divide the United States into the following districts, namely:
The district of New Hampshire, to consist of the State of New Hampshire; the district of Massachusetts,
to consist of the State of Massachusetts; the district of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, to
consist of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations; the district of Connecticut, to consist of
the State of Connecticut; the district of Vermont, to consist of the State of Vermont; the district of New
York, to consist of the State of New York; the district of New Jersey, to consist of the State of New
Jersey; the district of Pennsylvania, to consist of the State of Pennsylvania; the district of Delaware, to
consist of the State of Delaware; the district of Maryland, to consist of the
State of Maryland; the district of Virginia, to consist of the State of Virginia; the district of North
Carolina, to consist of the State of North Carolina; the district of South Carolina; and the district of
Georgia, to consist of the State of the State of Georgia .Page 99 March 4, 1791
In George Washington's Proclamation of March 30, 1791 he declares the district of Columbia to be
created and it's borders established, he says further:
And Congress by an amendatory act passed on the 3rd day of the present month of March have given
further authority to the President of the United States....
First of all, the Judicial Districts were created by the Judiciary Act of 1789, two years before Washington
said Congress gave him additional powers, thereby HE created District States, so the federal
government could use the militias to crush the tax protesters in Pennsylvania, by Washington's order.
Since the Judicial Districts already existed, why did they recreate them? If the District States were
already created, would it not be redundant to create them again? Washington said he was dividing the
United States into District States. He said DIVIDING THE STATES, listen, DIVIDING THE STATES,
not creating districts in the states, DIVIDING THE STATES into DISTRICTS, changing them, or you
26
would not DIVIDE THEM, because the states were already divided. How can you DIVIDE,
SEPARATE the states, made by the state and federal Charters/Constitutions? Why do this when
Congress already had the power to put down rebellion, Article I, section 8, U.S. Constitution? This was
an excuse to DIVIDE the states into DISTRICTS, extending the jurisdiction of the District of
Columbia/Congress and delegating to the President, authority given to Congress to suppress
insurrection, under art. I, sec. 8.
Second, the use of any military power before Congress declares war, by direction of the President is
done by him as Commander-in-Chief. Until Congress declares war they cannot stop the President unless
they impeach him, or when they declare war they can stop the President with their power of the purse,
unless the President were to then declare a national emergency, as Commander-in-Chief, overriding
Congress, in effect declaring himself king, or in our case anyone holding that office, which we now have.
I disagree with the un-Constitutional emergency powers claimed by the President, but unless the
Judiciary declares the President out of line, you or I cannot change this, unless you or I were elected
President, and declared this power un-Constitutional, but Congress would then impeach you or I to
protect Public policy. Around and Around it goes. Again this power comes from their operating under
executive jurisdiction, insular capacity: which was allowed by the Judiciary, beginning with what
Washington did. Because it was up to the Judiciary to declare what Congress was doing as un-
Constitutional, and up to Washington to not take power delegated to Congress. This power was
affirmed by the Congressional Act of 1845, and in the 1850's by the insular cases. This set the stage for
Lincoln to legislate by executive orders, and here we are.
Third, the Districts Washington created answered directly to the Commander-in-Chief, not Congress. In
order for these Districts to be created by the President, Congress had to give the President power
outside of the Constitution, as declared by Washington himself. Martial law can be used as soon as the
military is called upon to put down insurrection or fight a war. Washington created District States, not
state districts, and the military occupied the Pennsylvania District until the insurgents went home,
Washington said these Districts were created for putting down the rebellion, however they were never
disbanded when the rebellion ended. These courts, then, are not constitutional courts in which the
judicial power conferred by the Constitution on the general government can be deposited. They are
incapable of receiving it. They are legislative courts, created in virtue of the general right of sovereignty
which exists in the government, or in virtue of that clause which enables Congress to make all needful
rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the united States. The jurisdiction with which
they are invested is not a part of that judicial power which is conferred in the third article of the
Constitution, but is conferred by Congress in the execution of those general powers which that body
possesses over the territories of the United States." Harvard Law Review, Our New Possessions. page
481.
See also; Propeller Genessee Chief et al. v. Fitzhugh et al. 12 How. 443 (U.S. 1851) Jackson v.
Magnolia, 20 How.
296 315, 342 (U.S. 1852) DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), Hooven & Allison & Co.
vs Evatt, 324
U.S. 652 (1945)
Below you will see how Lincoln codified the war powers, the nexus was the District States Washington
created. I won't go into the subject of the Conquest after the Civil War, since it is far easier to
understand, I invite you to read and study the documents in Part III to learn about this subject.
However, I offer the below codification of Military Occupation, Conquest and International codification
of Martial law, you can download the whole general order 100.
Martial Law - Military jurisdiction - Military necessity – Retaliation
Article 1. A place, district, or country occupied by an enemy stands, in consequence of the occupation,
under the Martial Law of the invading or occupying army, whether any proclamation declaring Martial
27
Law, or any public warning to the inhabitants, has been issued or not. Martial Law is the immediate and
direct effect and consequence of
occupation or conquest. The presence of a hostile army proclaims its Martial Law.
Art. 2. Martial Law does not cease during the hostile occupation, except by special proclamation,
ordered by the commander in chief; or by special mention in the treaty of peace concluding the war,
when the occupation of a place or territory continues beyond the conclusion of peace as one of the
conditions of the same.
Art. 3. Martial Law in a hostile country consists in the suspension, by the occupying military authority,
of the criminal and civil law, and of the domestic administration and government in the occupied place or
territory, and in the substitution of military rule and force for the same, as well as in the dictation of
general laws, as far as military necessity requires this suspension, substitution, or dictation. The
commander of the forces may proclaim that the administration of all civil and penal law shall continue
either wholly or in part, as in times of peace, unless otherwise ordered by the military authority."
{Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, prepared by
Francis Lieber,
LL.D., Originally Issued as General Orders No. 100, Adjutant General's Office, 1863,
Washington 1898:
Government Printing Office.}"
PLAN OF A NEW GOVERNMENT
Our fore fathers were first and foremost administrators for the king and his holdings, so as to keep their
grants and fee simple titles, to their own land holdings in America and Britain. Prior to the Revolutionary
War, 1783 Treaty and the 1787 Constitution, there was a plan to organize a central government, still
subject to the king, still collecting taxes for the king. The only difference between the government we
have and the government you read about below is your perception, with word and technical changes.
The 1787 Constitution was a well thought out document, but the document below was its predecessor,
the similarities are obvious. What you will read below, along with the other documents provided in this
book, describe exactly what we have today. Notice the two paragraphs provided below, in the first a
central government is to be set up, with each colony to retain its own constitution. In the second
paragraph you see that, a President-General is to be elected to run the central government for the king.
What do we have now? President-Commander-in-Chief. Also, he is appointed and supported by the
Crown. How does any President get elected? The system is setup so that only someone supported by the
large corporations of this country can seriously run for President, or be elected, because of their financial
support.
Without this support, you cannot be President, no matter what the public wants. So the public, only has
Crown approved men, they can select from, to vote for, that way no matter who wins the Crown's
interest is protected. The public is told what to think about the different men the corporations have
chosen to represent them, so they think they are making informed choices. Nothing could be further
from the truth, they are electing a man, no matter the party, that will protect the Crown's interest, not
the public's. You may wish to continue to deny reality, but you can't separate the wet from water, nor
our government from Britain. The 1754 Albany Plan of Union
"It is proposed that humble application be made for an act of Parliament of Great Britain, by virtue of
which one general government may be formed in America, including all the said colonies, within and
under which government each colony may retain its present constitution, except in the particulars
wherein a change may be directed by the said act, as hereafter follows.
That the said general government be administered by a President-General, to be appointed and
supported by the crown; and a Grand Council, to be chosen by the representatives of the people of the
several Colonies met in their respective assemblies...."
28
The 1754 Albany Plan of Union.
The king's corporations are alive and well, lands they hold in fee simple can be parceled out to whom
they will, with the lands returning to the king when the grant/trust/license expires. The king made grants
to his colonies and lords, they became corporations under the United States Corporate Charter, the lords
make grants to other select men via corporate charters, or by grants of Trusts or license to smaller
corporations and individuals. Any time a corporation dies and no office is found, it's lands revert back to
the granter of the corporation, and so on back up the line, this is the reason for the inheritance tax, and
why it will never be repealed. I refer you back to an earlier chapter I wrote called, "How Long Can A
Corporation Live". Also, check out a paper the Informer and I jointly wrote on the subject of rent roll
and reversion and corporation sole, "Friends, Enemies And Die Hard Doubters", and you would be well
advised to read the Informer's book, "The New History Of America", and his other publications. Before
you read the ancient statutes, you must understand the legal term fee simple.
UNDERSTANDING FEE SIMPLE
"63. 1. Origin of feuds- The constitution of feuds had its original from the military policy of the northern
or celtic nations, the Goths, the Huns, the Franks, the Vandals, and the Lombards, who all migrating
from the same officina gentium (the storehouse of nations), as Crag very justly entitles it, poured
themselves in vast quantities into all the regions of Europe, at the declension of the Roman empire. It
was brought by them from their own countries, and continued in their respective colonies as the most
likely means to secure their new acquisitions: and to that end, large districts or parcels of land were
allotted by the conquering general to superior officers of the army, and by them dealt
out again in smaller parcels or allotments to the inferior officers and most deserving soldiers.
These allotments were called feoda, feuds, fiefs, or fees; which last appellation in the northern
languages signifies a conditional stipend or reward. Rewards or stipends they evidently were; and the
condition annexed to them was, that the possessor should do service faithfully, both at home and in the
wars, to him by whom they were given; for which purpose he took the juramentum fidelitatis, or oath of
fealty: and in case of the breach of this condition and oath, by not performing the stipulated service, or
by deserting the lord in battle, the lands were again to revert to him who granted them." 2
Blackstone's Commentaries, page 45 "Feud: An inheritable right to the use and occupation of lands, held
on condition of rendering services to the lord or
proprietor, who himself retains the property in the lands," Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition p.748
(1968). "Thus, the people had land they occupied, devised, inherited, alienated, or disposed of as they
saw fit, so long as they remained in favor with the King." F. L. Ganshof, Feudalism, p. 113 (1964).
"The largest estate in the land known to the law and implying absolute dominion over the land; an estate
of inheritance clear of any condition, limitation, or restriction, to particular heirs. 28 Am J2d Est 10. An
estate of lawful inheritance or pure inheritance, "fee" standing for inheritance and "simple" for pure or
lawful. A legal or equitable estate in land constituting the largest estate and implying absolute dominion,
although possibly subject to executory limitations or conditions subsequent. Hay's Estate v
Commissioner (CA5) 181 F2d 169, 39 ALR 2d 453; Ford v Unity Church Society, 120 Mo 498, 25 SW
394." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, Third Edition, 1969
Are taxes to be paid by common man holding fee simple title? Yes, according to the way fee simple is
defined today.
Today fee simple has been reduced in status to fee tail for common man, he is to pay all land taxes, also
he must abide by all restrictions placed on the land by federal, State and local governments, nor can he
use the land in any activity contrary to the Public Policy. The difference is the U.S. Corporation just as
the knight was granted land for fee, in service of the king by grant. Common man receives their fee from
the Corporation in tail, a lessor title, today fee simple and fee tail are synonymous, depending on your
status. I would have placed the quote here from the Ohio Bar Association on fee simple, but they restrict
29
its use, however below is their web site so you can look for yourself.
http://www.ohiobar.org/public/law&you/part8.html.
"This holding of lands under another was called a tenure, and was not limited to the relation of the first
or paramount lord and vassal, but extended to those to whom such vassal, within the rules of feudal [2]
law, may have parted out his own feud to his own vassals, whereby he became the mesne lord between
his vassals and his own or lord paramount. Those who held directly to the king were called his "tenants
in ... chief. " I E. Washburn, Treatise on The American Law of Real Property, Ch. 11, Section 58, P. 42
(6th Ed. 1902), Allodial And Land Patents Titles.
Maybe with the below quote you will also understand the meaning and significance behind the pyramid
on our dollar, with the all seeing eye at the top of the pyramid.
"The fiefs were built in the same manner as a pyramid, with the King, the true owner of the land, being
at the top, and from the bottom up there existed a system of small to medium sized to large to large
sized estates on which the persons directly beneath one estate owed homage to the lord of that estate as
well as to the King." Id. at 114, Allodial And Land Patents Titles
"At the lowest level of this pyramid through at least the 14th and 15th centuries existed to serfs or
villains, the class of people that had no rights and were recognized as nothing more than real property."
F.Goodwin, Treatise on The Law of Real Property, Ch. 1, p. 10 (1905), Allodial And Land Patents Titles
"Under this type of fief a certain portion of the grain harvested each year would immediately be turned
over to the lord above that particular fief even before the shares from the lower lords and then serfs of
the fief would be distributed. A more interesting type of fief for purposes of this memorandum [3] was
the money fief. In most cases, the source of money was not specified, and the payment was simply made
from the fief holder's treasury, but the fief might also consist of a fixed revenue to be paid from a definite
source in annual payments in order for the tenant owner of the fief
to be able to remain on the property." Gilsebert of Mons, Chronique, cc. 69 and 1 15, pp. 109, 175 (ed.
Vanderkindere), Allodial And Land Patents Titles
"142. (1) Fee-simple estates--Tenant in fee simple (or, as he is frequently styled, tenant in fee) is he that
hath lands, tenements, or hereditaments, to hold to him and his heirs forever; generally, absolutely, and
simply; without mentioning what heirs, but referring that to his own pleasure, or to the dispostition of
the law. The true meaning of the word "fee" (feodum) is the same with that of feud or fief, and in its
original sense it is taken in contradistinction to allodium; which latter the writers on this subject define to
be every man's own land, which he possesseth merely in his own right, without owing any rent or service
to any superior." 2 Blackstone's Commentary, page 105
"Thus, the term fee simple absolute in Common-Law England denotes the most and best title a person
could have as long as the King allowed him to retain possession of (own) the land. It has been
commented that the basis of English land law is the ownership of all reality by the sovereign. From the
crown, all titles flow. The original and true meaning of the word "fee" and therefore fee simple absolute
is the same as fief or feud, this being in contradiction to the term "allodium" which means or is defined
as a man's own land, which he possesses merely in his own right, without owing any rent or service to
30
any superior." Wendell [4] v Crandall, 1 N. Y. 491 (1848), Allodial And Land Patents Titles
"Therefore on Common-Law England practically everybody who was allowed to retain land, had the
type of fee simple absolute often used or defined by courts, a fee simple that grants or gives the occupier
as much of a title as the "sovereign" allows such occupier to have at that time. The term became a
synonym with the supposed ownership of land under the feudal system of England at common law.
Thus, even though the word absolute was attached to the fee simple, it merely denoted the entire estate
that could be assigned or passed to heirs, and the fee being the operative word; fee simple absolute dealt
with the entire fief and its divisibility, alienability and inheritability." Friedman v
Steiner, 107 111. 131 (1883), Allodial And Land Patents Titles "If a fee simple absolute in Common-Law
England denoted or was synonymous with only as much title as the King allowed his barons to possess,
then what did the King have by way of a title?
The King of England held ownership of land under a different title and with far greater powers than any
of his subjects. Though the people of England held fee simple titles to their land, the King actually
owned all the land in England through his allodial title, and though all the land was in the feudal system,
none of the fee simple titles were of equal
weight and dignity with the King's title, the land always remaining allodial in favor of the King." Gilsbert
of Mons,
Chronique, Ch. 43, p. 75 (ed. Vanderkindere), Allodial And Land Patents Titles
"Thus, it is relatively easy to deduce that allodial lands and titles are the highest form of lands and titles
known to Common-Law. An estate of inheritance without condition, belonging to the owner, and
alienable by him, transmissible
to his heirs absolutely and simply, is an absolute estate in perpetuity and the largest possible estate a man
can have, being in fact allodial in its nature." Stanton v Sullivan, 63 R.I. 216, 7 A. 696 (1839), Allodial
And Land Patents Titles The law of Mortmain, law of the sovereign, protecting his lands held by his
lords and religious men in fee, prohibiting them from diluting his title. Declaring he could confiscate the
land he or his lords were alienated from. Even the lords were subject to have their land reclaimed by the
king, if they violated the king's license requirements. You can find the
law of Mortmain at the end of the chapter, in the quotes section. I want to make this clear, if the king
and his law (common law) are still live, so are his Charters, Corporations and Trusts. Without defeating
the king (death or removal) his law still exists, if his law still exists, his Corporation (Crown) is as I have
said: alive and well. What did we do at the end of the Revolutionary War and in framing the 1787
Constitution? Claim the king's law, his common law, his feudal law for our own, and made it our law.
So, if you are subject to any tax on the land you live on, you do not, I repeat, DO NOT own your land,
you do not have allodial title to you land.
It is not possible, allodial and taxed property are an oxymoron, the two are as opposite as light and
darkness, the two cannot exist together. Even worse than this, under common law, which we made our
law of the land, you do not even have fee simple possession of your land, because early fee simple
possession is free from taxation, you hold the land in fee simple at best if you have a tax shelter, trust.
Fee tail, and lessor ownerships are evidenced by a title, deed or mortgage, which is how most land is
held, and is subject to taxation and or repossession, if the taxes are not paid. I'm sorry but this is a fact, I
don't care what you have been told, or lead to believe concerning allodial title. A huge number of
patriots believe because of the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War that we are
sovereigns here possessing the land through allodial title, as a matter of sovereignty, by defeating the
king. Wrong, it is impossible, the king has conned Americans, or I should say allowed them to believe
they are sovereigns, owning their land through allodial title.
This would be a good place for you to read some quotes by Sir Edmund Burke, and by Adam Smith,
because of the importance taxation plays in proving land ownership in America, by allodial title is an
oxymoron. I'm including more quotes at the end of this chapter by Adam Smith and other relevant
information. "If America gives you taxable objects on which you lay your duties here, and gives you, at
the same time, a surplus by
31
a foreign sale of her commodities to pay the duties on these objects which you tax at home, she has
performed her part to the British revenue. But with regard to her own internal establishments, she may, I
doubt not she will, contribute in moderation. I say in moderation, for she ought not to be permitted to
exhaust herself. She ought to be reserved to a war, the weight of which, with the enemies that we are
most likely to have, must be considerable in her quarter of the globe. There she may serve you, and
serve you essentially. For that service - for all service, whether of revenue, trade, or empire - my trust is
in her interest in the British Constitution. My hold of the Colonies is in the close affection which grows
from common names, from kindred blood, from similar privileges, and equal protection. These are ties
which, through light as air, are as strong as links of iron.
Let the Colonists always keep the idea of their civil rights associated with your government, they will
cling and grapple to you, and no force under heaven will be of power to tear them from their allegiance."
Burke on Conciliation with the Colonies, March 22, 1775, pages 71,72, published by Allyn and
Bacon"
"Let us get an American revenue as we have got an American empire. English privileges have made it all
that it is; English privileges alone will make it all it can be." Speech of Sir Edmund Burke, before the
House of Commons,
March 22, 1775
"But my idea of it is this; that an empire is the aggregate of many states under one common head,
whether this head be a monarch or a presiding republic." Speech of Sir Edmund Burke, before the
House of Commons, March 22, 1775 (So
Benjamin Franklin saying: we have given you a Republic, if you can keep it, means nothing, and was not
a hinderance to the king and his barristers.) Author's comment in brackets. "The people heard, indeed,
from the beginning of these disputes, one thing continually dinned in their ears, that reason and justice
demanded that the Americans, who paid no taxes, should be compelled to contribute...."Their wealth
was considered as our wealth. Whatever money was sent out to them, it was said, came all back to us by
the balance of trade, and we could never become a farthing the poorer by any expense which we could
lay out upon them. They were our own in every respect, and it was an expense laid out upon the
improvement of our own property and for the profitable employment of our own people." 1776, AN
INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS by Adam
Smith
Here are some court cases, that will help you understand fee simple, and how land is held in this country.
In this first case you will see our perception of what took place, then the judge lets the air out, and tells
you how it was and is, as amatter of law.
North Carolina Reports (Archive) MARSHALL v. LOVELASS, 1 N.C. 412 (1801) 2 S.E. 70
Page 368 "....Every person knows in what manner the citizens acquired the property of the soil within
the limits of this State. Being dissatisfied with the measures of the British Government, they revolted
from it, assumed the government into their own hands, seized and took possession of all the estates of
the King of Great Britain and his subjects, appropriated them to their own use, and defended their
possessions against the claims of Great Britain, during a long and bloody war, and finally obtained a
relinquishment of those claims by the treaty of Paris. But this State had no title
to the territory prior to the title of the King of Great Britain and his subjects, nor did it ever claim as lord
paramount to them. This State was not the original grantor to them, nor did they ever hold by any kind
32
of tenure under the State, or owe it any allegiance or other duties to which an escheat is annexed. How
then can it be said that the lands in this case naturally result back by a kind of reversion to this State, to a
source from whence it never issued, and from tenants who never held under it? Might it not be stated
with equal propriety that this country escheated to the King of Great Britain from the Aborigines, when
he drove them off, and took and maintained possession of their country?........ At the time of the
revolution, and before the Declaration of Independence, the collective body of the people had neither
right to nor possession of the territory of this State; it is true some individuals had a right to, and were in
possession of certain portions of it, which they held under grants from the King of Great Britain; but
they did not hold, nor did any of his subjects hold, under the collective body of the people, who had no
power to grant any part of it"....
North Carolina Reports (Archive) WARNER v. HARDING, 1 N.C. 700 2 S.E. 70
Page 703
DODERIDGE, J.
"As to the exception to the value of 12d., nothing appears, non refert. As to the matter of record. The
Queen may seize lands without any record. If return be made into the Exchequer that a man is beyond
the sea and will not return, being commanded so to do, the Crown may seize his lands. And although the
son cannot be heir during the life of his father, the father may have an action de filio et haerede."
North Carolina Reports (Archive) WARNER v. HARDING, 1 N.C. 680 2 S.E. 70
Page 680 But Page 681 ....."the statute is to be construed reasonably, and shall be expounded as the
King's patents are. Therefore, if the King grant by his letters patent, under the great seal, all mines, the
patentee shall not have royal mines.
Then when all possessions are given, there is a right of entry and a right of action, but the right of action
is not given by the general words of an act of Parliament. Now the word condition is a species and not a
genus; and the 26 H., 8, enacting that such persons shall forfeit all the lands, tenements, and
hereditaments, in which the offender shall have any estate of inheritance, there is not a difference
between an inheritance in fee or in tail, while there are but these two estates of inheritance, and the
statute says that he shall forfeit all the lands in which he has an estate of inheritance; and a condition is
as simple as an inheritance"....
North Carolina Reports (Archive) McKENZIE v. HULET, 4 N.C. 613 (1817) 2 S.E. 70
Page 443 ..."Where a grant abuts upon the sea or a navigable river, it stops, according to the common
law, at the ordinary high-water mark; and the shore that is, the ground between the high and low water
marks belongs of common right to the king. Hale, de Jure Maris, 12. But it seems to be well settled that
whatever is below the high-water mark may be granted by the king, of which many instances are put in
the book already cited. The charter of Car. II. to the lords proprietors is an illustration of the form used
by the crown in the grant of royalties"....
North Carolina Reports (Archive) MARSHALL v. LOVELASS, 1 N.C. 412 (1801) 2 S.E. 70
Page 347 ...."If the land had escheated, it then becomes necessary to inquire, In what manner has the
State taken? I contend that the land is taken by the State, exempt of any trust for in England, when the
Lord or King takes by escheat, they take discharged of the trust. 1 Coke's Rep., 122, Chudleigh's case.
Before the Statute of 27 Henry, 8, the land reverted to the Lord discharge of the trust.
North Carolina Reports (Archive) MARSHALL v. LOVELASS, 1 N.C. 412 (1801) 2 S.E. 70 August 1,
1999 Page 349. When the war broke out those who did not like the new government were at liberty to
sell their lands and retire with the proceeds where they pleased; and this is agreeable to the law of
nations. Vattel, B. 1, sec. 33, 195. This doctrine seems to have been held in view by the framers of the
Constitution. Iredell's Rev., 276. Declaration of Rights, sec. 25. This section only charges the sovereign,
and by it no escheat can take place, and aliens may still take and hold
lands. This section provides that the titles made by the King and the Lords Proprietors shall not be
affected; and the General Assembly of this State have shown that they were under the influence of this
opinion, as appears from the 3d chap., Acts 1777. Iredell's Rev., 284, 285
So read closely the portions of ancient state statutes, provided below.
33
ANCIENT STATUTES
Delaware
"All fines and common recoveries levied and suffered within this State, in pursuance of or according to
the common or statute laws of England, in the Superior Court of the county wherein the lands,
tenements or hereditaments entailed lie shall be as good in law, to bar estates so entailed, as fines and
common recoveries of lands, tenements or hereditaments levied, or England are. Any heir at law or other
person claiming any right in the lands, tenements or hereditaments may, either by appeal or writ of error,
reverse such fines or recoveries for any errors in levying or suffering the fines or recoveries."
(Code 1852, 1639, 1640; Code 1915, 3234; Code 1935, 3697; 25 Del. C. 1953, 301.)
302. Bar of estate tail by deed.
"A person having a legal or equitable estate or right in fee tail in possession, remainder or reversion, in
any lands, tenements or hereditaments may alien the lands, tenements or hereditaments, in fee simple, or
for other less estate, by deed, in the same manner and as effectually as if such estate or right were in fee
simple. The deed of alienation in fee simple of any person, of any lands, tenements or hereditaments shall
have the same effect and operation for barring all estate tail and other interests in the lands, tenements or
hereditaments, as such persons being a party cognizor to a fine in due manner levied, or party vouchee
to a common recovery with a double voucher in due manner suffered, of the
lands, tenements or hereditaments. No deed shall avail within either of these provisions, unless it is duly
acknowledged or proved according to law, or unless it would be a valid and lawful deed sufficient to
pass the premises, if the maker were seized of the premises in fee simple."
(Code 1852, _ 1641; Code 1915, _ 3235; Code 1935, _ 3698; 25 Del. C. 1953, _ 302.)
303. Warranty by life tenant and collateral warranty.
"A warranty made by a tenant for life shall not, by descending or coming to a person in remainder or
reversion, bar or affect his title. A collateral warranty shall not in any case bar or affect a title not derived
from the person making such warranty."
(Code 1852, 1642; Code 1915, 3236; Code 1935, 3699; 25 Del. C. 1953, 303.)
304. Permanent leasehold estates as estates in fee simple.
"Permanent leasehold estates, renewable forever, shall be considered to be estates in fee simple, and shall
be subject to the same modes of alienation, power of devise, and rules of descent and distribution, and to
all the incidents of an estate in fee, provided that the grantor of the leasehold or the person entitled to
the estate, out of which the term issues, has first released to the grantee of the term or the person in
possession of the leasehold all his right to the rent charged upon or growing out of the leasehold."
(15 Del. Laws, c. 168; Code 1915, _ 3237; Code 1935, _ 3700; 25 Del. C. 1953, _ 304.)
305. Deeds by foreign corporations; recording as evidence; ownership rights.
"All deeds to lands in Delaware executed and delivered by corporations created by and existing under
the laws of the states and territories of the United States of America, other than Delaware, or created by
and existing under the laws of any foreign state or nation, are made valid and effective to convey the fee
simple or other estate purported to be conveyed in such deeds, with the same force and effect as if the
corporation grantor had been a corporation lawfully created by and existing under the laws of this State.
Such deeds, when recorded, or any office copy thereof, shall be admitted as evidence in all courts of this
State, and shall be valid and conclusive evidence, with the same force and effect as if such deeds had
been properly executed, acknowledged and delivered by corporations created by and existing under the
laws of this State. A foreign corporation owning lands in Delaware may exercise all rights and privileges
of ownership to the same extent as if such corporation were a corporation lawfully created by and
existing under the laws of this State."
(26 Del. Laws, c. 253; Code 1915, 3238; 38 Del. Laws, c. 174; Code 1935, 3701; 25 Del. C. 1953,
305.)
I just wanted to point out the below statute declared, that the State of Georgia (created Corporation) is
a successor to the Crown of England. The Crown is the Corporate entity of the king, and as I have
stated before, first there was the Corporate Charters, amended to corporate colonies, amended to
34
corporate States, via their State Constitutions, that did not change the original corporate charter, as
declared in the 25th sec. of the North Carolina, Declaration of Rights, 1776
N.C. Constitution, which I quote again here:
"And provided further, that nothing herein contained shall affect the titles or possessions of individuals
holding or claiming under the laws heretofore in force, or grants heretofore made by the late King
George II, or his predecessors, or the late lords proprietors, or any of them." Declaration of Rights
1776, North Carolina Constitution.
Then confirmed by the 1783 Paris Treaty, wherein the minerals did not change hands, they stayed with
the king, his heirs and successors. In other words, the king, his heirs and his successors forever, were to
continue to receive as a matter of Trust, the gain, profit from his corporate venture. To cement this since
his subjects had gone brain dead, and now believed themselves free from their obligations. Believing
when the States became States of, after the 1787
Constitution was ratified, they became free and sovereign. In March 1791 thanks to George Washington,
the States of, became District States of the Crown, side stepping the 1787 Constitution and the States
short lived independence declared in 1776, in favor of the king's public policy, his taxes and licenses to
be administered by his United States Corporation and its elected fiduciaries and den of thieves. When
governing for the king, the President and Congress were no longer bound by the 1787 Constitution. The
king would now receive as declared in his early Charters for himself, his heirs and successors, the 30
percent tax for his family business venture. Because now his bank could operate within the several
District States, incorporated in the District of Columbia, this was not possible until
Washington made the District States; never to be repealed. Also, go back and read the quotes I gave by
Burke and Smith, there is no doubt.
Georgia
"The General Assembly finds and declares that the State of Georgia became the owner of the beds of all
tidewaters within the jurisdiction of the State of Georgia as successor to the Crown of England and by
the common law. The State of Georgia continues to hold title to the beds of all tidewaters within the
state, except where title in a private party can be traced to a valid Crown or state grant which explicitly
conveyed the beds of such tidewaters. The General Assembly further finds that the State of Georgia, as
sovereign, is trustee of the rights of the people of the state to use and enjoy all
tidewaters which are capable of use for fishing, passage, navigation, commerce, and transportation,
pursuant to the common law public trust doctrine. Therefore, the General Assembly declares that the
protection of tidewaters for use by the state and its citizens has more than local significance, is of equal
importance to all citizens of the state, is of wide concern, and, consequently, is properly a matter for
regulation under the police powers of the state. The General Assembly further finds and declares that
structures located upon tidewaters which are used as places of habitation, dwelling, sojournment, or
residence interfere with the state's proprietary interest or the public trust, or both, and must be removed
to ensure the rights of the state and the people of the State of Georgia to the use and enjoyment of such
tidewaters. It is declared to be a policy of this state and the intent of this article to protect the tidewaters
of the state by authorizing the commissioner of natural resources to remove or require removal of
certain structures from such tidewaters in accordance with the procedures and within the timetable set
forth in this article."
"(1) An Act for reviving and enforcing certain laws therein mentioned and adopting the common laws of
England as they existed on May 14, 1776, approved February 25, 1784. (For the adopting Act of 1784,
see Prince's 1822 Digest, p.
570; Cobb's 1851 Digest, p. 721; and Code of 1863, Section 1, paragraph 6.)"
Florida
35
CHAPTER 2 COMMON LAW IN FORCE; REPEALED STATUTES "2.01 Common law and
certain statutes declared in force. 2.04 Repealed statute not revived by implication. 2.01 Common law
and certain statutes declared in force.--The common and statute laws of England which are of a general
and not a local nature, with the exception hereinafter mentioned, down to the 4th day of July, 1776, are
declared to be of force in this state; provided, the said statutes and common law be not inconsistent with
the Constitution and laws of the United States and the acts of the Legislature of this state. History.--s. 1,
Nov. 6, 1829; RS 59; GS 59; RGS 71; CGL 87."
Virginia
1-10 "The common law
The common law of England, insofar as it is not repugnant to the principles of the
Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth, shall continue in full force within the same, and
be the rule of decision, except as altered by the General Assembly _ 1-11 Acts of Parliament The right
and benefit of all writs, remedial and judicial, given by any statute or act of Parliament, made in aid of
the common law prior to the fourth year of the reign of James the First, of a general nature, not local to
England, shall still be saved, insofar as the same are consistent with the Bill of Rights and Constitution
of this Commonwealth and the Acts of Assembly."
I hope by now when you read the below statue, you recognize when they say public's interest they are
not talking about the people that voted them into office.
Maine
571. Legislative findings and purpose
"The Legislature finds and declares that the intertidal lands of the State are impressed with a public trust
and that the State is responsible for protection of the public's interest in this land. [1985, c. 782 (new).]
The Legislature further finds and declares that this public trust is part of the common law of Maine and
generally derived from the practices, conditions and needs in Maine, from English Common Law and
from the Massachusetts Colonial Ordinance of 1641-47. The public trust is an evolving doctrine
reflective of the customs, traditions, heritage and habits of the Maine people. In Maine, the doctrine has
diverged from the laws of England and Massachusetts. The public trust encompasses those uses of
intertidal land essential to the health and welfare of the Maine people, which uses include, but are not
limited to, fishing, fowling, navigation, use as a footway between points along the shore and use for
recreational purposes. These recreational uses are among the most important to the Maine people today
who use intertidal land for relaxation from the pressures of modern society and for enjoyment of nature's
beauty. [1985, c. 782
The Legislature further finds and declares that the protection of the public uses referred to in this
chapter is of great public interest and grave concern to the State. [1985, c. 782
Vermont
VERMONT STATUTES ONLINE Title 24. Municipal and County Government Chapter 65. Public
Lands and Funds
" 2401. PUBLIC LANDS; DUTIES OF SELECTMEN The selectmen shall have the care of lands in
the town granted under the authority of the British Government as glebes for the use of the Church of
England and now by law granted to such town for the use of schools, and lands granted to the use of the
ministry or the social worship of God, and lands granted to the first settled minister, and not
appropriated according to law.
2402. RIGHT OF POSSESSION The selectmen shall be entitled to the possession of such lands,
36
except when the same have been otherwise disposed of according to law. They may commence,
prosecute or defend, in the name of the town, any action necessary to recover or protect such
possession, or recover damages for injuries done to such lands.
2404. RENTS OF OTHER LANDS, HOW DIVIDED AND APPLIED The rents of lands granted to
the use of the ministry or social worship of God, and the rents of lands granted to the first settled
minister, shall annually, on February 1, be equally divided by the selectmen among the different
organized religious societies in town that maintain public worship at least a fourth of the Sabbaths in the
year. If there is not such a society, the same shall be covered into the treasury, and may be appropriated
to pay for preaching the gospel or for the support of public schools, or for the improvement or care of
public burial grounds, as such town by a vote in town meeting directs, until a religious society is
organized in the town.
2405. CONTRACT UNDER PREVIOUS LAW NOT AFFECTED Section 2404 of this title shall not
affect a lease of such lands or a contract relating to or disposition of the same under previous law.
2406. CONVEYANCE OF LEASEHOLDS, TRUST FUNDS Educational, ecclesiastical or municipal
corporations may convey by deed the fee simple in lands the title to or use of which is held by such
corporations under state or colonial grant for purposes defined in such grants. Such conveyance may be
made to the owner and holder of leasehold rights in such land if such lands are then held under lease, but
shall not be made to other than such holders of leasehold interests except subject to such leasehold
interest, if any, or simultaneously with the extinguishment thereof. Such lands
may be condemned in accordance with and in the manner provided by law. The funds received in
consideration of such conveyance or awarded such corporations as damages in condemnation
proceedings shall be kept intact, in trust, by such corporations as endowment funds, and the income only
shall be used for the purposes for which such lands were originally granted. Such lands as may be sold,
conveyed or condemned as provided in this section shall thereafter be subject to taxation as are other
lands."
New Jersey
PROPERTY TITLE 46
46:1-1. Words and phrases defined
"As used in this title, except where the context clearly indicates a contrary intent, the terms "county
recording officer" and "office of the county recording officer" mean the register of deeds and mortgages
and his office in counties having such an officer and office, and the county clerk and his office in the
other counties."
46:2-1. Titles, rights and interests preserved "Nothing in this title contained shall in any way affect,
abridge or abrogate any title to or rights or interests in any real estate or personal property lawfully
given, acquired and existing at the time when the Revised Statutes take effect."
The main thing I want you to understand, and I believe most do, as I said earlier, our laws were based
on the Common law of England, all states in union of the United States are, accept one. That's right one
state out of the fifty is not under English Common law. A lot of you may think this must be Texas, but
it's not. The one state not subject to, or formed under English common law is New York, New York City
is responsible for not only our demise, but the entire World's.
New York City is the alter ego of London, and the other banking centers for the Banksters of the World
to operate.
New York City is the home of the Bankers, the World Trade Center, the Stock Market, the World Bank's
control via the IMF and the United Nations, etc. The controlling center for all banking, communication
and super computers containing data on everyone and every transaction for the Bankers to control the
Worlds population and their leaders, through their finances, with the U.N. as their police force and
NATO as prosecutor of the Law Of The Flag and Conqueror of new Empires. When you read the very
revealing statements in the New York statutes below you will see, they declare themselves not to be
37
under English Common law, by section 70, sec. 71 deals with Acts and sec. 72 deals
with Resolutions.
If you would like to understand how this fits into God's Word, that is New York City, read Rev. 17-18,
Jer. 51 and Isa 13. I wrote on this subject years ago and I won't go into it here other than to say, New
York City is the Biblical Babylon as you can read for yourself, as God Almighty defines Babylon in Rev.
18, no other City in the World meets His definition.
New York
New York State Consolidated Laws: General Construction
ARTICLE 3 ANCIENT STATUTES AND RESOLUTIONS "Section
70. Statutes of England and Great Britain inoperative in this state.
71. Acts of the legislature of the colony of New York inoperative.
72. Resolutions of the congress of the colony and the convention of New York inoperative.
S 70. Statutes of England and Great Britain inoperative in this state. A statute of England or Great
Britain shall not be deemed to have had any force or effect in this state since May first, seventeen
hundred and eighty-eight.
S 71. Acts of the legislature of the colony of New York inoperative. Acts of the legislature of the colony
of New York shall not be deemed to have had any force or effect in this state since December twentyninth,
eighteen hundred and twenty-eight.
S 72. Resolutions of the congress of the colony and the convention of New York inoperative. The
resolutions of the congress of the colony of New York and of the convention of the state of New York,
shall not be deemed to be the laws of this state hereafter."
Texas
Civil Practice and Remedies Code TITLE 2. TRIAL, JUDGMENT, AND APPEAL SUBTITLE A.
GENERAL
PROVISIONS CHAPTER 5. RULE OF DECISION
Sec. 5.001. Rule of Decision.
"The rule of decision in this state consists of those portions of the common law of England that are not
inconsistent with the constitution or the laws of this state, the constitution of this state, and the laws of
this state. Acts 1985, 69th
Leg., ch. 959, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1985"
North Carolina
"Chapter 40A. Eminent Domain. ARTICLE 1. General. _ 40A-1. Exclusive provisions. It is the intent
of the General Assembly that the procedures provided by this Chapter shall be the exclusive
condemnation procedures to be used in this State by all private condemnors and all local public
condemnors. All other provisions in laws, charters, or local acts authorizing the use of other procedures
by municipal or county governments or agencies or political subdivisions thereof, or by corporations,
associations or other persons are hereby repealed effective January 1, 1982. Provided, that any
condemnation proceeding initiated prior to January 1, 1982, may be lawfully completed pursuant to the
provisions previously existing. This chapter shall not repeal any provision of a local act enlarging or
limiting the purposes for which property may be condemned. Notwithstanding the language of G.S.
40A-3(b),this Chapter also shall not repeal any provision of a local act creating any substantive or
procedural requirement or limitation on the authority of a local public condemnor to exercise the power
of eminent domain outside of its boundaries."
" 40A-2. Definitions. As used in this Chapter the following words and phrases have the meanings
38
indicated unless the context clearly requires another meaning: (1) "Condemnation" means the procedure
prescribed by law for exercising
the power of eminent domain. (2)"Condemnor" means those listed in G.S. 40A-3. (3) "Eminent domain"
means the power to divest right, title or interest from the owner of property and vest it in the possessor
of the power against the will of the owner upon the payment of just compensation for the right, title or
interest divested. (4) "Judge" means a resident judge of the superior court in the district where the cause
is pending, or special judge residing in said district, or a judge of the superior court assigned to hold the
courts of said district or an emergency or special judge holding court in the county where the cause is
pending. (5) "Owner" includes the plural when appropriate and means any person having an interest or
estate in the property. (6) "Person" includes the plural when appropriate and means a natural person, and
any legal entity capable of owning or having interest in property. (7) "Property" means any right, title, or
interest in land, including leases and options to buy or sell. "Property" also includes rights of access,
rights-of-way, easements, water rights, air rights, and any other privilege or appurtenance in or to the
possession, use, and enjoyment
of land."
" 40A-3. By whom right may be exercised. (a) Private Condemnors. -- For the public use or benefit,
the persons or organizations listed below shall have the power of eminent domain and may acquire by
purchase or condemnation property for the stated purposes and other works which are authorized by
law. (1) Corporations, bodies politic or
persons have the power of eminent domain for the construction of railroads, power generating facilities,
substations, switching stations, microwave towers, roads, alleys, access railroads, turnpikes, street
railroads, plank roads, tramroads, canals, telegraphs, telephones, electric power lines, electric lights,
public water supplies, public sewerage systems, flumes, bridges, and pipelines or mains originating in
North Carolina for the transportation of petroleum products, coal, gas, limestone or minerals. Land
condemned for any liquid pipelines shall."
I guess now is a good time to deal with the pipe dreams we have been taught and allowed to believe,
reenforced by the government school system, in the selective teaching of history, also, parroted by the
media. The pipe dream as I said earlier is our belief we do, or can possess land in this country, under the
present law, in allodial title. Notice I said under the present law, this is the key to the king's power,
retaining possession to his Corporation, the Crown. What did we do at the beginning of this nation?
Declare our law to be English common law, confirming the king's Corporation and the law that created
it and protects it even today.
"Corporation Sole: A corporation consisting of one person only and his successors. An older concept of
the status of a king or a bishop as incorporated in order to give tho them and their successors legal
capacities and advantages, particularly that of perpetuity, which they could not have in their natural
capacities." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, Third Ed., 1969” Reversion. The residue of an estate and left in
the grantor, to commence in possession after the determination of some particular estate granted out by
him. The return of land to the grantor and his heirs after the grant is over." Bouvier's
Law Dictionary, vol. 3, 1914" 651. b. Civil corporations (1) Lay corporations. ....But first, as I have laid
it down as a rule that the founder, his heirs, or assigns, are the visitors of all lay corporations, let us
inquire what is meant by the founder. The confounder of all
corporations in the strictest and original sense is the king alone, for he only can incorporate a society;
and in civil incorporations, such as mayor and commonalty, etc., where there are no possessions or
endowments given tot eh body, there is no other founder but the king:".... Blackstone's Commentaries,
vol. 1 pg. 685 654. 10. Dissolution of corporations. ....But the body politic may also itself be dissolved
in several ways; which dissolution is the civil death of the corporation: and in this case their lands and
tenements shall revert to the person, or his heirs, who granted them to the corporation: for the law doth
annex a condition to every such grant, that if the corporation be dissolved, the grantor shall have the
lands again, only during the life of the corporation; which may endure forever: but, when that life is
determined by the dissolution of the body politic, the grantor takes it back by reversion, as in the case of
39
every other grant for life." Blackstone's Commentaries, vol. 1 pg. 700
Not to get ahead of myself, we first declared our Independence, sounded good, but why would you
place your neck back under the yoke, the law that subjected you? Simple, as history proves, many of our
fore fathers, including Washington did not want to be separated from the king. Some stood to lose lands
and title, others understood they were subjects of the king and liked it. History shows they were not at
odds with being subjects of the king, just his policies, regarding taxes and their government being so far
removed, commerce and legal convenience demanded representation here, but still controlled by the
king. The king being so far removed from his possessions in America, misjudged his subjects needs,
rebellion turned into War.
But as always, the belligerent's just wanted their redress heard, and our fore fathers knowing full well
English history and how the game was played, knew the king would capitulate and make the concessions
needed, never dreaming they would have what appeared to be a separate sovereign country at the end of
the War. What about this War, did we win? Well lets look at history, I have covered this before, but it
bears repeating. Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, but the document read, Capitulation at Yorktown.
Did Cornwallis surrender, or did they just quit fighting because the king, made the necessary
capitulations to the colonist demands? Well, did Cornwallis surrender his arms, in other words, did he
and his troops lay down their arms and leave unarmed? No.
Did Cornwallis surrender his colors,the king's flag? No. Anyone that knows anything about War and
Conquest, knows the flag of the surrendering enemy has to be surrendered, if not you just fought a
battle, and did not win the war. Was Cornwallis and his army allowed to return to England armed and
with their colors? Yes. Were British subjects allowed to retain their lands and possessions in America?
Yes Was the king removed from his throne and his laws defeated, by his removal? No. Tell me again
America, we won the Revolutionary War? I'm sorry, the facts don't support what you want to believe is
the case.
Cornwallis
Now, the so called 1783 Paris Treaty, wherein the king's possessions were turned over to us without his
losing the War.
Benjamin Franklin spent almost the entire war traveling back and forth from France and England
working out the terms of the Treaty, excuse me GRANT, from the king of England. Let me see, we did
not win the War, we did not dictate the terms of surrender, the king's barrister's along with the esquires
chosen from America, Franklin, Jay and Adams, wrote the document. A document wherein the king's law
remained in force, and he GRANTED lands to his new Corporation, the United States. However, he did
not grant to his Corporation the rights to the minerals existing and all to be found in the future. As I
have said before, he declared in his Charters, ownership to all minerals, and that he was to receive a
portion of the gain/profit in this country forever. Go back and read the quotes earlier in this paper. Also,
how can the king do anything else but give fee simple title, when his law provide for only him to have
allodial title.
Did he change his law? NO. Could he change the un-revocable Trust his Charters established for all his
heirs and successors? No. No, and could not without destroying his throne, his Crown (corporation) and
his law, thereby conquesting himself. You see that is the only way under the king's law to own land by
allodial title, via conquest, as the conqueror. This is why no country has defeated the king of England
and his Crown, because if his law exists wherein the Corporate Charter was created, and the king and
his heirs remain, the king's Crown and Charters remain enforce.
40
Let's look at another source, here are several relevant quotes I pulled out of the Book written by
Frederic Maitland, 1901, The Crown as Corporation.
"In 1522 Fineux C.J. after telling how some corporations are made by the king, others by the pope,
others by both king and pope, adds that there are corporations by the common law, for, says he, "the
parliament of the king and the lords and the commons are a corporation."(7*) Y.B. 14 hen. VIII, f. 3
(Mich. pl. 2). The Crown as Corporation.
Frederic Maitland, 1901
"The king has two capacities, for he has two bodies, the one whereof is a body natural... the other is a
body politic, and the members thereof are his subjects, and he and his subjects together compose the
corporation, as Southcote said, and he is incorporated with them and they with him, and he is the head
and they are the members, and he has the sole government of them."(12*) Plowden, p. 234. The Crown
as Corporation, Frederic Maitland, 1901
"But, says an Act of 1738, the said premises "being vested in His Majesty, his heirs and successors in his
politick capacity, which in consideration of law never dies, it may create a doubt whether the tenants of
the said estates ought...
to pay such fines... on the death of His present Majesty (whom God long preserve for the benefit of his
People) or On the death of any future King or Queen." So the tenants are to pay as they would have
paid "in case such King or Queen so dying was considered as a private person only and not in his or her
politick capacity".(27*) (II Geo. II, c. 30, pr. s. 1.) Thus that artificial person, the king in his politick
capacity, who is a trustee for the Publick, must be deemed to die now and then for the benefit of cestui
que trust.
But it was of "the Publick" that we were speaking, and I believe that "the Publick" first becomes
prominent in connexion with the National Debt. Though much might be done for us by a slightly
denaturalized king, he could not do all that was requisite. Some proceedings of one of his predecessors,
who closed the Exchequer and ruined the
goldsmiths, had made our king no good borrower. So the Publick had to take his place. The money
might be "advanced to His Majesty", but the Publick had to owe it. This idea could not be kept off the
statute book. "Whereas," said an Act of 1786, "the Publick stands indebted to" the East India Company
in a sum of four millions and more."(28*) 26 Geo. III, c. 62. The Crown as Corporation, Frederic
Maitland, 1901
"This is natural, for we may, if we will, trace the beginnings of a national debt back to days when a king
borrows money and charges the repayment of it upon a specific tax; perhaps he will even appoint his
creditor to collect that tax, and so enable him to repay himself." The Crown as Corporation, Frederic
Maitland, 1901
"In 1714 the Governor, Council and General Assembly of New York passed a long Act "for the paying
and discharging the several debts and sums of money claimed as debts of this Colony". A preamble
stated that some of the debts of the Colony had not been paid because the Governors had misapplied
and extravagantly expended "the revenue given by the loyal subjects aforesaid to Her Majesty and Her
Royal Predecessors, Kings and Queens of England, sufficient for the honorable as well as necessary
support of their Government here." "This Colony", the preamble added, "in strict justice is in no manner
of way obliged to pay many of the said claims"; however, in order "to restore the Publick Credit", they
were to be paid.(35*)(Act of 1714 13 Anne) Here we have a Colony which can be bound even in strict
justice to pay money. What the great colonies did the small colonies did also." The Crown as
Corporation, Frederic Maitland, 1901.
"But then comes the lawyer with theories in his head, and begins by placing a legal estate in what he
calls the Crown or Her Majesty. "In construing these enactments, it must always be kept in view that
wherever public land with its incidents is described as 'the property of' or as 'belonging to' the Dominion
or a Province, these expressions merely import that the right to its beneficial use, or to its proceeds, has
been appropriated to the Dominion or the Province, as the case may be, and is subject to the control of
its legislature, the land itself being vested in the Crown."(44*)St.
41
Catherine's Milling and Lumber Co. v. The Queen (1888), 14 App. Cas. 46. esp. p. 56; A.-G. of Brit.
Columbiav. A.-G. of Canada, 14 App. Cas. 295; A.-G. of Ontario v. Mercer (1883), 8 App. Cas. 767;
A.-G. of Canada v. As.-G. Of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia [1898] A.C. 700." The Crown as
Corporation, Frederic Maitland, 1901
"Although the Secretary of State [for India] is a body corporate, or in the same position as a body
corporate, for the purpose of contracts, and of suing and being sued, yet he is not a body corporate for
the purpose of holding property.
Such property as formerly vested, or would have vested, in the East India Company now vests in the
Crown."(45*)
Ilbert, Government of India (3rd.ed. 1915), p. 196" The Crown as Corporation, Frederic Maitland, 1901
In the quote below from Maitland, you will see that even the Postmaster General was used to secure the
king's possessions in America, and was a vehicle used by the king, through the President and his powers
as Commander-in- Chief, to expand the king's land west, via the king's law going west with the laws
governing the mail. After that, is a
quote from President Monroe, arguing that such powers were not being used and did not exist, he
would no doubt have to eat a huge amount of crow today, if he was alive today, and saw the Dept. of
Transportation, and the power they have been granted over the Nation's roads, and skies. You will also
see the need for the king to incorporate, and that a grant of sovereign land ownership in was given to
the War Dept. Sounds like the military's loyalty was bought and paid for, leading up to conquest of
America, after the Civil War.
"In 1840 the Postmaster-General and his successors "is and are" made "a body corporate" for the
purpose of holding and taking conveyances and leases of lands and hereditaments for the service of the
Post Office. From the Act that effected this incorporation we may learn that the Postmaster as a mere
individual had been holding land in trust for the Crown.(52*) 3&4 Vict. c. 96, s. 67 [now - Ed. VII, c.
48, s. 45] One of the main reasons, I take it, for erecting some new corporations sole was that our
"Crown", being more or less identifiable with the King, it was difficult to make the Crown a leaseholder
or copyholder in a direct and simple fashion. The Treasurer of Public Charities was made a corporation
sole in 1853.(53*) 16 & 17 Vict. c. 137, s. 47.
Then in 1855 the Secretary of State intrusted with the seals of the War Department was enabled to hold
land as a corporation sole.(54*) 18&19 Vict. c. 117, s. 2. Perhaps if there were a Lord High Admiral he
would be a corporation sole vel quasi.(55*) 27&28 Vict. C. 57, s." The Crown as Corporation, Frederic
Maitland, 1901
"If the United States possessed, the power contended for under this grant, might they not, in adopting
the roads of the individual states for the carriage of the mail, as has been done, assume jurisdiction over
them, and preclude a right to interfere with or alter them? Might they not establish turnpikes, and
exercise all the other acts of sovereignty, above stated, over such roads, necessary to protect them from
injury, and defray the expense of repairing them? Surely, if the right exists, these consequences
necessarily followed, as soon as the road was established. The absurdity of such a pretension must be
apparent to all, who examine it. In this way, a large portion of the territory of every state might be
taken from it; for there is scarcely a road in any state, which will not be used for the transportation of
the mail. A new field for legislation and internal government would thus be opened." President Monroe's
Message, of 4th May, 1822, p.
24 to 27. . 1 Johnson's Dict. ad verb.; Webster's Dict. ibid.
Post Routes "All public roads and highways while kept up and maintained. 39 USC 482. All the waters
of the United States during the time the mail is carried thereon, all the railroads or parts of railroads and
all air routes which are now, or hereafter may be, in operation; all canals and plank roads during the time
the mail is carried thereon; the road on which may mail is carried to supply any court house which may
be without a mail; the road on which mail is carried under contract made by the Postmaster General for
extending the line of post to supply mails to post offices not on any established route, during the time
such mail is carried thereon; and all letter-carrier routes established in any city or town for the collection
42
and delivery of mail matter." 39 USC 481.
Below is the Quote section, I've also added The Treaty of Verona, a quote by Senator Owen, from the
Congressional Record, 1916 on the same Treaty, and last but not least, the Jesuit Oath. In these
documents you will see the hidden agenda of the Pope, I had bought this information out in previous
emails, but now is the proper time to re air this subject, so you can understand the relevance of the
Informer's comments, in his introduction. As the Informer said, in this last chapter I have dealt primarily
with our nexus with the king of England, so as not to cloud the issue anymore than it is, by dealing with
more than this subject.
"Their wealth was considered as our wealth. Whatever money was sent out to them, it was said, came all
back to us by the balance of trade, and we could never become a farthing the poorer by any expense
which we could lay out upon them. They were our own in every respect, and it was an expense laid out
upon the improvement of our own property and for the profitable employment of our own people."
OUR FORE FATHERS WANTED THE BENEFITS AND PRIVILEGES WITHOUT PAYING
THE TAX TO THE KING.
"Resolved, 4. That the foundation of English liberty, and of all free government, is a right in the people
to participate in their legislative council: and as the English colonists are not represented, and from their
local and other circumstances, can not properly be represented in the British Parliament, they are entitled
to a free and exclusive power of legislation in their several provincial legislatures, where their right of
representation can alone be preserved, in all cases of taxation and internal polity, subject only to the
negative of their sovereign, in such manner as has been heretofore used and accustomed. But, from the
necessity of the case, and a regard to the mutual interest of both countries, WE CHEERFULLY
CONSENT TO THE OPERATION OF SUCH ACTS OF THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT, as are
BONA FIDE, restrained to the regulation of our external commerce, for the PURPOSE OF
SECURING THE COMMERCIAL ADVANTAGES OF THE WHOLE EMPIRE TO THE
MOTHER COUNTRY, and the COMMERCIAL BENEFITS OF ITS RESPECTIVE
MEMBERS; excluding every idea of taxation, internal or ETERNAL, for raising a revenue on the
SUBJECTS IN AMERICA, without their consent." Declaration of Rights, from September 5, 1774
(The forefathers wanted the commercial benefits without paying the taxes that go hand in hand, it does
not work that way.)
"Resolved, 7. That these, His Majesty's colonies, are likewise entitled to all the IMMUNITIES AND
PRIVILEGES GRANTED and confirmed to them by ROYAL CHARTERS, or secured by their
several codes of provincial laws."
Declaration of Rights, from September 5, 1774
4. WHERE THE PRESENT DAY TAXES COME FROM.
"Before I enter upon the examination of particular taxes, it is necessary to premise the four following
maxims with regard to taxes in general.
I. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as
possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they
respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expense of government to the individuals of a
great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged
to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this
maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation.
Every tax, it must be observed once for all, which falls finally upon one only of the three sorts of
revenue above mentioned, is necessarily unequal in so far as it does not affect the other two. In the
following examination of different taxes I shall seldom take much further notice of this sort of inequality,
but shall, in most cases, confine my observations to that inequality which is occasioned by a particular
tax falling unequally even upon that particular sort of private revenue which is affected by it.
II. The tax which each individual is bound to pay ought to be certain, and not arbitrary. The time of
payment, the manner of payment, the quantity to be paid, ought all to be clear and plain to the
contributor, and to every other person. Where it is otherwise, every person subject to the tax is put more
43
or less in the power of the tax-gathered, who can
either aggravate the tax upon any obnoxious contributor, or extort, by the terror of such aggravation,
some present or perquisite to himself. The uncertainty of taxation encourages the insolence and favours
the corruption of an order of men who are naturally unpopular, even where they are neither insolent nor
corrupt. The certainty of what each individual ought to pay is, in taxation, a matter of so great
importance that a very considerable degree of inequality, it appears, I believe, from the experience of all
nations, is not near so great an evil as a very small degree of uncertainty.
III. Every tax ought to be levied at the time, or in the manner, in which it is most likely to be convenient
for the contributor to pay it. A tax upon the rent of land or of houses, payable at the same term at which
such rents are usually paid, is levied at the time when it is most likely to be convenient for the
contributor to pay; or, when he is most likely to
have wherewithal to pay. Taxes upon such consumable goods as are articles of luxury are all finally paid
by the consumer, and generally in a manner that is very convenient for him. He pays them by little and
little, as he has occasion to buy the goods. As he is at liberty, too, either to buy, or not to buy, as he
pleases, it must be his own fault if
he ever suffers any considerable inconveniency from such taxes.
IV. Every tax ought to be so contrived as both to take out and to keep out of the pockets of the people
as little as possible over and above what it brings into the public treasury of the state. A tax may either
take out or keep out of the pockets of the people a great deal more than it brings into the public
treasury, in the four following ways. First, the levying of it may require a great number of officers,
whose salaries may eat up the greater part of the produce of the tax, and whose perquisites may impose
another additional tax upon the people. Secondly, it may obstruct the industry the people, and
discourage them from applying to certain branches of business which might give maintenance and
unemployment to great multitudes. While it obliges the people to pay, it may thus diminish, or perhaps
destroy, some of the funds which might enable them more easily to do so. Thirdly, by the forfeitures and
other penalties which those unfortunate individuals incur who attempt unsuccessfully to evade the tax, it
may frequently ruin them, and thereby put an end to the benefit which the community might have
received from the employment of their capitals. An injudicious tax offers a great temptation to
smuggling. But the penalties of smuggling must rise in proportion to the temptation.
The law, contrary to all the ordinary principles of justice, first creates the temptation, and then punishes
those who yield to it; and it commonly enhances the punishment, too, in proportion to the very
circumstance which ought certainly to alleviate it, the temptation to commit the crime. Fourthly, by
subjecting the people to the frequent visits and the odious examination of the tax-gatherers, it may
expose them to much unnecessary trouble, vexation, and oppression; and though vexation is not, strictly
speaking, expense, it is certainly equivalent to the expense at which every man would be
willing to redeem himself from it. It is in some one or other of these four different ways that taxes are
frequently so much more burdensome to the people than they are beneficial to the sovereign."
"It is not contrary to justice that both Ireland and America should contribute towards the discharge of
the public debt of Great Britain.
That debt has been contracted in support of the government established by the Revolution, a
government to which the Protestants of Ireland owe, not only the whole authority which they at present
enjoy in their own country, but every security which they possess for their liberty, their property, and
their religion; a government to which several of the colonies of America owe their present charters, and
consequently their present constitution, and to which all the colonies of America owe the liberty,
security, and property which they have ever since enjoyed. That public debt has been contracted in the
defense, not of Great Britain alone, but of all the different provinces of the empire; the immense debt
contracted in the late war in particular, and a great part of that contracted in the war before, were both
properly contracted in defense of America."
"The expense of the peace establishment of the colonies was, before the commencement of the present
disturbances, very considerable, and is an expense which may, and if no revenue can be drawn from them
44
ought certainly to be saved altogether. This constant expense in time of peace, though very great, is
insignificant in comparison with what the defense of the colonies has cost us in time of war. The last
war, which was undertaken altogether on account of the colonies, cost Great Britain, it has already been
observed, upwards of ninety millions. The Spanish war of 1739 was principally undertaken on their
account, in which, and in the French war that was the consequence of it, Great Britain spent upwards of
forty millions, a great part of which ought justly to be charged to the colonies. In those two wars the
colonies cost Great Britain much more than double the sum which the national debt amounted to before
the commencement of the first of them. Had it not been for those wars that debt might, and probably
would by this time,
have been completely paid; and had it not been for the colonies, the former of those wars might not, and
the latter certainly would not have been undertaken. It was because the colonies were supposed to be
provinces of the British empire that this expense was laid out upon them. But countries which contribute
neither revenue nor military force towards the support of the empire cannot be considered as provinces.
They may perhaps be considered as appendages, as a sort of splendid and showy equipage of the empire.
But if the empire can no longer support the expense of keeping up this equipage, it ought certainly to lay
it down; and if it cannot raise its revenue in proportion to its expense, it ought, at least, to accommodate
its expense to its revenue.
If the colonies, notwithstanding their refusal to submit to British taxes, are still to be considered as
provinces of the British empire, their defense in some future war may cost Great Britain as great an
expense as it ever has done in any former war. The rulers of Great Britain have, for more than a century
past, amused the people with the imagination that they possessed a great empire on the west side of the
Atlantic. This empire, however, has hitherto existed in imagination only. It has hitherto been, not an
empire, but the project of an empire; not a gold mine, but the project of a gold mine; a project which has
cost, which continues to cost, and which, if pursued in the same way as it has been hitherto, is likely to
cost, immense expense, without being likely to bring any profit; for the effects of the monopoly of the
colony trade, it has been shown, are, to the great body of the people, mere loss instead of profit."
5. THE FEDERAL RESERVE SISTER OF THE EXCHEQUER.
Exchequer: "The English department of revenue. A very ancient court of record, set up by William the
Conqueror, as a part of the aula regia, and intended principally to order the revenues of the crown, and
to recover the king's debts and duties. It was called exchequer, "scaccharium," from the checked cloth,
resembling a chessboard, which covers the table." Ballentine's Law Dictionary
Exchequer: "That department of the English government which has charge of the collection of the
national revenue; the treasury department." Black's Law Dictionary 4th ed.
Exchequer: "In English Law. A department of the government which has the management of the
collection of the king's revenue." Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1914 ed.
Court of Exchequer: "56.The court of exchequer is inferior in rank not only to the court of king's bench,
but to the common pleas also: but I have chosen to consider it in this order, on account of its double
capacity, as a court of law and a court of equity [44] also. It is a very ancient court of record, set up by
William the Conqueror, as a part of the aula regia, through regulated and reduced to its present order by
King Edward I; and intended principally to order the revenues of the crown, and to recover the king's
debts and duties. It is called the exchequer, scaccharium, from the chequed cloth, resembling a chessboard,
which covers the table there; and on which, when certain of the king's accounts are made up, the
sums are marked and scored with counters. It consists of two divisions; the receipt of the exchequer,
which manages to royal revenue, and with which these Commentaries have no concern; and the court or
judicial part of it, which is again subdivided into a court of equity, and a court of common law." Black
Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1554
Court of Exchequer: "An English superior court with jurisdiction of matter of law and matters involving
government revenue." Ballentine's Law Dictionary
Court of Exchequer: "A court for the correction and prevention of errors of law in the three superior
common-law courts of the kingdom.
45
A court of exchequer chamber was first erected by statute 31 Edw. III. C. 12, to determine causes upon
writs of error from the common-law side of the exchequer court. It consisted of the chancellor,
treasurer, and the "justices and other sage persons as to them seemeth." The judges were merely
assistants. A second court of exchequer chamber was instituted by statute 27 Eliz. C. 8, consisting of the
justices of the common pleas and the exchequer, or any six of them, which had jurisdiction in error of
cases in the king's bench. In exchequer chamber substituted in their place as an
intermediate court of appeal between the three common-law courts and Parliament. It consisted of the
judges of the two courts which had not rendered the judgement in the court below. It is now merged in
the High Court of Justice." Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1914 ed.
The equity court of the exchequer: "57. The court of equity is held in the exchequer chamber before the
lord treasurer, the chancellor of the exchequer, the chief baron, and three puisne' ones. These Mr. Selden
conjectures to have been anciently made out of such as were barons of the kingdom, or parliamentary
barons; and thence to have derived their name: which conjecture receives great strength form Bracton's
explanation of magna carta, c.14, which directs that the earls and barons be amerced by their peers; that
is, says he, by the barons of the exchequer.
The primary and original business of this court is to call the king's debtors to account, by bill filed by the
attorney general; and to recover any lands, tenements, or hereitaments, any goods, chattels, or other
profits or benefits, belonging to the crown. So that by their original constitution the jurisdiction of the
courts of common pleas, king's bench, and exchequer, was entirely separate and distinct; the common
pleas being intended to decide all controversies between subject and subject; the king's bench to correct
all crimes and misdemeanors that amount to a breach of the peace, the king being then the plaintiff, as
such offenses are in open derogation of the jura regalia (regal rights) of his crown; and the exchequer to
adjust [45] and recover his revenue, wherein the king also is plaintiff, as the withholding and
nonpayment thereof is an injury to his jura fiscalia (fisical rights). But, as by a fiction almost all sorts of
civil actions are now allowed to be brought in the king's bench, in like manner by another fiction all
kinds of personal suits may be prosecuted in the court of exchequer. For as all the officers and ministers
of this court have, like those of other superior courts, the privilege of suing and being sued only in their
own court; so exchequer, are privileged to sue and implead all manner of persons in the same court of
equity that they themselves are called into. They have likewise privilege to sue and implead one another,
or any stranger, in the same kind of common-law actions (where the personalty only is concerned) as are
prosecuted in the court of common pleas." Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1554 The commonlaw
court of the exchequer: "58. This gives original to the common-law part of their jurisdiction, which
was established merely for the benefit of the king's accountants, and is exercised by the barons only of
the exchequer, and not the treasurer or chancellor. The writ upon which the plaintiff suggests that he is
the king's farmer or debtor, and that the defendant hath done him the injury or damage complained of;
quo minus sufficient exist, by which he is the less able, to pay the king his debt or rent. And these suits
are expressly directed, by what is called the statute of Rutland, to be confined to such matters only as
specially concern the king or his ministers of the exchequer.
And by the articuli super cartas it is enacted that no common pleas be thenceforth holden in the
exchequer, contrary to the form of the great charter. But not, by the suggestion of privilege, any person
may be admitted to sue in the exchequer as well as the king's accountant. The surmise of being debtor to
the king is therefore become matter of form and mere words of
course, and the court is open to all the nation equally. The same holds with regard to the equity side of
the court: for there any person may file [46] a bill against another upon a bare suggestion that he is the
king's accountant; but whether he is so or not is never controverted. In this court, on the nonpayment of
titles; in which case the surmise of being the king's debtor is no fiction, they being bound to pay him
their first-fruits, and annual tenths. But the chancery has of late years obtained a large share in this
business." Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1555 Definition of a legal fiction: Mr Justice Curtis
(Jurisdiction of United States Courts, 2d ed., 148) gives the following instance of a fiction in our
practice:
46
"A suit by or against a corporation in its corporate name may be presumed to be a suit by or against
citizens of the state which created the corporate body, and no averment or denial to the contrary is
admissible for the purpose of withdrawing the suit from the jurisdiction of a court of the United States.
There is the Roman fiction: The court first decides the law, presumes all the members are citizens of the
state which created the corporation, and then says, `you shall not traverse that presumption'; and that is
the law now. (Authors noteby your residence you are incorporated) Under it, the courts of the United
States constantly entertain suits by or against corporations.
(Muller v. Dows, 94 U. S. 444, 24 L. Ed. 207.) It has been so frequently settled, that there is not the
slightest reason to suppose that it will ever be departed from by the court. It has been repeated over and
over again in subsequent decisions; and the supreme court seem entirely satisfied that it is the right
ground to stand upon; and, as I am now going to state to you, they have applied it in some cases which
go beyond, much beyond, these decisions to which I have referred. So that when a suit is to be brought
in a court of the United States by or against a corporation, by reason of the character of the parties, you
have only to say that this corporation (after naming it correctly) was created by a law of the state; and
that is exactly the same in its consequences as if you could allege, and did allege, that the corporation
was a citizen of that state. According to the present decisions, it is not necessary you should say that the
members of that corporation are citizens of Massachusetts.
They have passed beyond that. You have only to say that\ the corporation was created by a law of the
state of Massachusetts, and has its principal place of business in that state; and that makes it, for the
purposes of jurisdiction, the same as if it were a citizen of that state" See Pound, Readings in Roman
Law, 95n. Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1553
Statute of Mortmain, 1279
"The king to his Justices of the Bench, greeting. Where as of late it was provided that religious men
should not enter into the fees of any without the will and licence of the lords in chief of whom these fees
are held immediately; and such religious men have, notwithstanding, later entered as well into their own
fees as into those of others, appropriated, them to themselves, and buying them, and sometimes
receiving them from the gift of others, whereby the services which are due of such fees, and which at the
beginning, were provided for the defence of the realm, are unduly withdrawn, and
the lords in chief do lose their escheats of the same; we, therefore, to the profit of our realm, wishing to
provide a fit remedy in this matter, by advice of our prelates, counts and other subjects of our realm who
are of our council, have provided, established, and ordained, that no person, religious or other,
whatsoever presume to buy or sell any lands or tenements, , or under colour of gift or lease, or of any
other term or title whatever to receive them from any one, or in any other craft or by wile to appropriate
them to himself, whereby such lands and tenements may come into mortmain under pain of forfeiture of
the same. We have provided also that if any person, religious or other, do presume either by craft or wile
to offend against this statute it shall be lawful for us and for other immediate lords in chief of the fee so
alienated, to enter it within a year from the time of such alienation and to hold it in fee as an inheritance.
And if the immediate lord in chief shall -be negligent and be not willing to enter into such fee within the
year, then it shall be lawful for the next mediate lord in chief, within the half year following, to enter that
fee and to hold it, as has been said;
and thus each mediate lord may do if the next lord be negligent in entering such fee as as been said. And
if all such chief lords of such fee, who shall be of full age, and within the four seas and out of prison,
shall be for one year negligent or remiss in this matter, we, straightway after the year is completed from
the time when such purchases, gifts, or appropriations of another kind happen to have been made, shall
take such lands and tenements into our hand, and shall enfief others therein by certain services to be
rendered thence to us for the defence of our kingdom ; saving to the lords in chief of the same fees their
wards, escheats and other things which pertain to them, and the services therefrom due and accustomed.
And therefore we command you to cause the aforesaid statute to be read before you, and from
henceforth firmly kept and observed. Witness myself at Westminster, the 15th day of November, the 7h
year of our reign."
47
Could the President as trustee, in behalf of the Crown, sell what it does not control, as trustee? No. Will
the unsuspecting purchasers of the sold property own it? No. They might be granted fee simple title, or
be made to pay taxes if given only fee tail title. Either way the king is still the corporate sole, and they
will not have allodial title.
Remember this Executive Order, I use it because it further proves the American people do not own any
land in America.
19063 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Federal Register PRESIDENTIAL
DOCUMENTS Vol.
57, No. 86 Monday, May 4, 1992 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Title 3-- Executive Order 12803 of April 30, 1992 The President Infrastructure Privatization
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States
of America, and
in order to ensure that the United States achieves the most beneficial economic use of its
resources, it is hereby
ordered as follows:
Section 1. Definitions. For purposes of this order: (a) "Privatization" means the disposition or
transfer of an
infrastructure asset, such as by sale or by long-term lease, from a State or local government to a
private party.
(b) "Infrastructure asset" means any asset financed in whole or in part by the Federal
Government and needed
for the functioning of the economy. Examples of such assets include, but are not limited to: roads,
tunnels,
bridges, electricity supply facilities, mass transit, rail transportation, airports, ports, waterways,
water supply
facilities, recycling and wastewater treatment facilities, solid waste disposal facilities, housing,
schools, prisons,
and hospitals.
(c) "Originally authorized purposes" means the general objectives of the original grant program;
however, the
term is not intended to include every condition required for a grantee to have obtained the
original grant.
(d) "Transfer price" means: (i) the amount paid or to be paid by a private party for an
infrastructure asset, if
the asset is transferred as a result of competitive bidding; or (ii) the appraised value of an
infrastructure asset,
as determined by the head of the executive department or agency and the Director of the Office
of Management
and Budget, if the asset is not transferred as a result of competitive bidding.
(e) "State and local governments" means the government of any State of the United States, the
District of
Columbia, any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States, and any county,
municipality, city,
town, township, local public authority, school district, special district, intrastate district, regional
or interstate
governmental entity, council of governments, and any agency or instrumentality of a local
government, and any
federally recognized Indian Tribe.
Sec. 2. Fundamental Principles. Executive departments and agencies shall be guided by the
following objectives
48
an principles:
(a) Adequate and well-maintained infrastructure is critical to economic growth. Consistent with
the principles of
federalism enumerated in Executive Order No. 12612, and in order to allow the private sector to
provide for
infrastructure modernization and expansion, State and local governments should have greater
freedom to
privatize infrastructure assets.
(b) Private enterprise and competitively driven improvements are the foundation of our Nation's
economy and
economic growth. Federal financing of infrastructure assets should not act as a barrier to the
achievement of
economic efficiencies through additional private market financing or competitive practices, or
both.
(c) State and local governments are in the best position to assess and respond to local needs. State
and local
governments should, subject to assuring continued compliance with Federal requirements that
public use be on
reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms, have maximum possible freedom to United States, its
agencies or
instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or any other person.
[Signed George Bush]
THE WHITE HOUSE April 30, 1992. {FR Doc. 92-10495 Filed 4-30-92; 4:17 pm} Billing code
3195-01-m
Secret Treaty Of Verona
"The undersigned specially authorized to make some additions to the treaty of the Holy Alliance, after
having exchanged their respective credentials, have agreed as follows:
ARTICLE I. The high contracting powers being convinced that the system of representative government
is equally as incompatible with the monarchial principles as the maxim of the sovereignty of the people
with the divine right, engage
mutually, in the most solemn manner to use all their efforts to put an end to the system of representative
governments, in whatever country it may exist in Europe, and to prevent its being introduced in those
countries where it is not yet known.
ARTICLE 2. As it cannot be doubted that the liberty of the press is the most powerful means used by
the pretended supporters of the rights of nations to the detriment of those of princes, the high
contracting parties promise reciprocally to adopt all proper measures to suppress it, not only in their
own state but also in the rest of Europe.
ARTICLE 3. Convinced that the principles of religion contribute most powerfully to keep nations in the
state of passive obedience which they owe to their princes, the high contracting parties declare it to be
their intention to sustain in their respective states, those measures which the clergy may adopt with the
aim of ameliorating their own interests, so intimately connected with the preservation of the authority of
the princes; and the contracting powers join in offering their thanks to the Pope for what he has already
done for them, and solicit his constant co-operation in their views of
submitting the nations.
ARTICLE 4. The situation of Spain and Portugal unite unhappily all the circumstances to which this
treaty has particular reference. The high contracting parties, in confiding to France the care of putting an
end to them, engaged to assist her in the manner which may at least compromit them with their own
people and the people of France by means
of a subsidy on the part of the two empires of 20,000,000 of francs every year from the date of signature
of this treaty to the end of the war.
49
ARTICLE 5. In order to establish in the peninsula the order of things which existed before the
revolution of Cadiz, and to insure the entire execution of the articles of the present treaty, the high
contracting parties give to each other the reciprocal assurance that as long as their views are not
fulfilled, rejecting all other ideas of futility or other measure to be taken, they will address themselves
with the shortest possible delay to all the authorities existing in their states and to all their agents in
foreign countries, with the view to establish connections tending toward the accomplishment of the
objects proposed by this treaty.
ARTICLE 6. This treaty shall be renewed with such changes as new circumstances may give occasion
for; either at a new congress, or at the court of one of the contracting parties, as soon as the war with
Spain shall be terminated.
ARTICLE 7. The present treaty shall be ratified and the ratifications exchanged at Paris within the space
of six months.
Made at Verona the 22nd of November, 1822. For Austria: Metternich. For France: Chateaubriand. For
Russia:
Bernstet. For Russia: Nesselrode."
Senator Owen "This Holy Alliance, having put a Bourdon prince upon the throne of France by force,
then used France to suppress the condition of Spain, immediately afterwards, and by this very treaty
gave her a subsidy of 20,000,000 francs annually to enable her to wage war upon the people of Spain
and prevent their exercise of any measure of the right of self-government. The Holy Alliance
immediately did not same thing in Italy, by sending Austrian troops to Italy, where the people there
attempted to exercise a like measure of liberal constitutional self-government; and it was
not until the printing press, which the Holy Alliance so stoutly opposed, taught the people of Europe the
value of liberty that finally one country after another seized a greater and greater right of selfgovernment,
until now it may be fairly
said that nearly all the nations of Europe have a very large measure of self-government.
"However, I wish to call the attention of the Senate to this important history in the growth of
constitutional popular self- government. The Holy Alliance made its powers felt by the wholesale drastic
suppression of the press in Europe, by universal censorship, by killing free speech and all ideas of
popular rights, and by the complete suppression of popular government. The Holy Alliance having
destroyed popular government in Spain, and Italy, had well-laid plains also to destroy popular
government in the American Colonies which had revolted from Spain and Portugal in Central and South
America under the influence of the successful example of the United States."
"It was because of this conspiracy against the American Republics by the European monarchies that the
great English statesman, Canning, called the attention of our government to it, and our statesmen then,
including Thomas Jefferson, who was still living at that time, took an active part to bring about the
declaration by President Monroe in his next annual message to the Congress of the United States that
the United States would regard it as an act of hostility to the government of the United States and an
unfriendly act, if this coalition, or if any power of Europe ever undertook to establish upon the American
continent any control of any American republic, or to acquire any territorial rights. "This is the so-called
Monroe Doctrine. The threat under the secret treaty of Verona to suppress popular government in the
American republics is the basis of the Monroe Doctrine. This secret treaty sets fourth clearly the conflict
between monarchial government and popular government, and the government of the few as against the
government on the many." Senator Owen, Congressional Record 1916
THE JESUIT OATH
"I.............................., now in the presence of Almighty God, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Blessed
Michael the Archangel, The Blessed St. John the Baptist, the Holy Apostles, Peter and Paul, and all the
Saints, sacred hosts of Heaven, and to you, my ghostly Father, the Superior General of the Society of
Jesus, founded by St. Ignatius Loyaola, in the Ponification of Paul the Third, and continued to the
present, do by the womb of the virgin, the matrix of God, and the rod of Jesus Christ, declare and swear
50
that his holiness, the Pope, is Christ's Vice-regent, and is the true and only head of the Catholic or
Universal Church throughout the earth; and that by the virtue of the keys of binding and loosing, given
to his Holiness by my Savior, Jesus Christ, he hath power to depose heretical kings, princes, states,
commonwealths and governments, all being illegal without his sacred confirmation, and that they may be
safely destroyed. "Therefore, to the utmost of my power, I shall and will defend this doctrine and his
Holiness' right and customs against all usurpers of the heretical or Protestant authority, whatever
especially the Lutheran Church of Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway, and the now
pretended authority of the Church of England and Scotland, the branches of the same, now established
in Ireland, and on the continent of America and elsewhere....I so now renounce and disown any
allegiance as due to any heretical king, prince or state named Protestant or Liberals, or obedience to any
of their laws, magistrates or officers.
"I do further declare, that I will help and assist and advise all or any of his Holiness' agents in any place
wherever I shall be, and do my utmost to extirpate the heretical Protestant of Liberal doctrines and to
destroy all their pretended powers, legal or otherwise. "I do further promise and declare, that
notwithstanding I am dispensed with to assume any religion heretical, for the propagating of the Mother
Church's interest, to keep secret and private all her agents' counsels, from time to tome as they may
instruct me, and not to divulge directly or indirectly, by word, writing, or circumstances whatever; but to
execute all that shall be proposed given in charge or discovered unto me, by you, my ghostly father.....
"I do further promise and declare, that I will have no opinion or will of my own, or any mental
reservation whatever, even as a corpse or cadaver (perinde ac cadaver) but unhesitatingly obey each and
every command that I may receive from my superiors in the Militia of the Pope and Jesus Christ.
"That I will go to any part of the world, whatsoever, without murmuring and will be submissive in all
things whatsoever communicated to me.....I do further promise and declare, that I will, when
opportunity presents, make and wage relentless war, secretly or openly, against all heretics, Protestants
and Liberals, as I am directed to do to extirpate and exterminate them from the face of the whole earth,
and that I will spare neither sex, age no condition, and that I will hang, waste, boil, flay, strangle and
bury alive these infamous heretics; rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women and crush their
infants' heads against the wall, in order to annihilate forever their execrable race.
That when the same cannot be done openly, I will secretly use the poison cup, the strangulation cord,
the steel of the poinard, or the leaden bullet, regardless of honor, rank, dignity or authority of the person
or persons whatsoever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be
directed so to do by any agent of the Pope or superior of the brotherhood of the holy faith of the Society
of Jesus." Congressional Record, House Bill 1523, Contested election case of Eugene C. Bonniwell,
against Thos. S. Butler, Feb. 15, 1913, pages 3215-16, sited: The Suppressed Truth About The
Assassination Of Abraham Lincoln "Senior Military Pentagon officials have been working closely with
senior officials at Wall Street to perfect several scenarios that could quickly be put into action once Wall
Street crashes." U.S. Under Secretary of the Navy Jerry MacArthur, in a speech to the Current Strategy
Forum held at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, June 16, 1998. (Notice he said
"once," and not "if," Wall Street crashes.)
There has been a war brewing for the last year. It all started with the Palastinians and Israeli's throwing
rocks at each other and shooting each other in the Gaza Strip. It has since escalated to major
proportions. THIS HAS BEEN TOTALLY COVERED UP BY THE U.S. MEDIA. What you are about
to read about has mostly been taken from reports available on WorldNetDaily.com They are all listed
here below. None of this has appeared on the news. I have personally been following this since the
beginning because I feared it would become the pretext for a third world war. As it has been turning out,
it is going in exactly that direction. The Israelis have been retaliating by shooting and killing
(assassinating) the main militants involved in Hamas that are waging the "jihad" or "holy war" against
the "Zionists" This has to do with the founding of the State of Israel and the modern day government.
These "Zionists" want to reclaim the Temple Mount to rebuilt the "Third Temple of Soloman" for the
preparation of the coming Messiah.
51
The only problem is that the land where this is, is currently occupied by the muslims and is the home of
the Al-Aqsa Mosque, where thousands of muslims come to worship. But, the main thing people must
realize here, is that eventually, the "GREAT PLAN" is for Israel to take back the property, somehow, in
order to do this. They must if they wish to rebuilt the "Temple of Soloman" on the previous Temple
Mount where it once stood. It is my belief and the contention of a number of authors that the State of
Israel was set up for this purpose by the family (Royal Davidic Bloodline) Merovingians, in order to
bring forth their groomed "heir" to the throne of Jerusalem, and rule the world in the coming one-world
government. This has been a plan of theirs for 2000 years now, and they are probably getting a bit tired
of waiting. If you want to learn more about the racism aspect of zionism or what it really is or what the
difference is between the zionists and the Jews, then Click Here!! to goto the Racism and Roots of Anti-
Semitism Page.
There are 3 (I wonder where that came from) major things that need to occur before the messiah can
return according to this particular philosophy that these people subscribe to. When these 3 things occur
at the same time, then the Temple of Soloman can be rebuilt to prepare for the coming messiah. Once
this happens, and only after this event, I believe the story goes, that the messiah will return. The 3 things
events that must take place are the following : 1.) A living heir to King David with proof of his identity
must be sitting 2.) On the throne of the Vatican, and 3.) Possess the "Spear of Destiny (Longinus), said
to have pierced the "side of jesus". It is claimed this sword sits today in the Hapsburg Museum in
Austria.
These may be two different philosophies intertwined. The family's own wierd philosophy along with a
known Jewish or Hebrew doctrine of the second coming. I don't know the answer to this one at this
time. It was important though, that I put this webpage together to get people "up to speed" on what I
believe is a possibly "provoked" incident to instigate an "all out war" that has been in the making for a
whole year now, but recently escalated in the last 2 or 3 months.
Remember, I am just a researcher, not a psychic. I am be totally wrong about these things, but time will
tell. I have been researching this for some time, and that is why I am confident enough in what i'm
saying, that I believe this is what's going on. Otherwise I would not have put this web page together.
First, please review the following several articles and then read the entire timeline of events of recent
happenings in the middle east. They are short articles, for those with ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder /
Cure = Stop Watching Television)
A quote by Bin Laden : "There are two parties to the conflict," he went on to say. "The world
Christianity, which is allied with Jews and Zionism, led by the United States, Britain and Israel," he said.
The other "is the Islamic world."
1. Read This First - (8-08-01) - The Third Temple: Blueprint for War?
2. Read This Second - (8-06-01) - Jewish Pope
3. Read This Third - The Bestiality of the Fundies - 10-31-2000 - by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
4. Read This Fourth - Temple Mount Fanatics Foment a New Thirty Years' War - 11-3-2000 - EIR
Investigative Team
5. Read This Fifth - (5-22-01) - Feds canceled pre-blast raid. Committee head: If government had acted,
attack on building could have been thwarted
Apparently, the United States was going to blow up major installations and financial buildings as a
pretext for the invasion of Cuba. This following article is fascinating. To think that our government was
going to do this 40 years ago.
Basically, the same kind of event that took place in New York and Washington. Makes me wonder what
they would do if they had more time and money on their hands.
6. (4-24-01) - New book on NSA sheds light on secrets . U.S. terror plan called Cuba invasion pretext
7. (5-22-01) - USA: Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban
8. (5-23-01) - May 23 Congressional Letter Urged Bush To Speak Out Against Taliban
9. (6-26-01) - India in anti-Taliban military plan - India and Iran will "facilitate" the planned US-Russia
hostilities against the Taliban.
52
10. (May 2000) - George W. Bush - Tapped for "Skull and Bones" - (Knight of Eulogia)
11. (4-25-01) - Bizarre secrets of Bush club exposed
12. (frontline: 1999) - James Tabor - apocalypse!: apocalypticism explained: jerusalem
48–119 CC 1998 - U.S. INTERESTS IN THE CENTRAL ASIAN REPUBLICS
HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC OF THE COMMITTEE
ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES - ONE HUNDRED FIFTH
CONGRESS SECOND SESSION FEBRUARY 12, 1998 – From
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa48119.000/hfa48119_0f.htm
(9-26-01) - Mullah Omar - In His Own Words -
Omar: I am considering two promises. One is the promise of God, the other is that of Bush. The
promise of God is that my land is vast. If you start a journey on God's path, you can reside anywhere on
this earth and will be protected... The promise of Bush is that there is no place on earth where you can
hide that I cannot find you. We will see which one of these two promises is fulfilled.
(9-26-01) - At Least 25,000 Evacuated From WTC Before Collapse.
Which is really strange if you read it in conjuction with the following story. Now, why would they want
to do that? (I am currently searching for the article, but can't find it. It points out how people were
ordered to stay in the building (tower #2) after the plane struck tower #1.)
With Florida under Martial Law, and New York, now called a "Police State", do you think it couldn't
happen in your state?
(9-27-01) - New York : CITY IS NOW A POLICE STATE'
The cover of "Shadow Reavers," released Aug. 22, luridly depicts an attack on New York City.
Workers at a Sparta, Ill., firm that distributes comic books to retailers were startled when they realized
that "Shadow Reavers," a new comic released last month, depicted the fiery attack on the World Trade
Center.
The 25-page comic book, released Aug. 22, features a lurid depiction of an attack on Manhattan under
the warning, "New York City will be the first to fall."
(This plan even goes back to the time of the Nazis. See, that's what we get for letting them into the CIA
after WWII.)
(9-29-01) - Attack on World Trade Center Followed WWII Nazi Script
(9-30-01) - Resentful west spurned Sudan's key terror files
(9-30-01) - Will Some Dare Call It Treason? (This one is very well researched, and very revealing)
Will Some Dare Call It Treason?- By Phoenix - Lytewyrks@aol.com - 9-30-1
(Extracted From 'The Silk Road' Series - Part One)
In a Wall Street Journal article on September, 19, 2001 Larry Klayman, chairman of Washington-based
Judicial Watch said, "Any companies doing business with the Binladin Group are disloyal to the interests
of the United States and should be held accountable."
53
WHAT IF COMPANIES DOING BUSINESS WITH THE BIN LADIN GROUP ARE
REPRESENTED BY THOSE IN THE WHITE HOUSE? HOW SHOULD THEY BE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE?
IS THIS TREASON?
In fact, a Halliburton company, Bredaro-Shaw, is a joint venture partner of The Binladin Group.
Bredaro-Shaw has done pipeline projects for Enron. Halliburton and Enron are well represented in The
White House.
This was under Saudi Binladin Group's Joint Venture Partners section. "Price Arabia Limited H.C.Price
has been a leader in heavy construction since its establishment in 1921. The company built its reputation
as a constructor of crosscountry pipelines, totalling over 3,600 miles and fibre optic cable networks,
totalling nearly 3000 miles. Over the years, Price has proven to be particularly successful in the
execution of large projects such as Trans- Alaska Pipeline, the Northern Border Pipeline and the Florida
Gas pipeline project, the largest single U.S. pipeline project awarded since
1992. Its international projects include Tehran to Tabritz Oil Products Line & Port Terminal Facility in
Iran and the C Field, Block 65 to Tobruk Crude Transport Line in Libya."
Enron's Gas Pipeline Group owns interests in four interstate pipelines, operates 32,000 miles of pipelines
in 21 states and transports 15 percent of U.S. natural gas.
Florida Gas Transmission
Florida Gas Transmission, the sole interstate natural gas pipeline serving peninsular Florida, is the fastest
growing system in North America. With a surge in state population and demand for gas-fired electric
generation, Florida Gas Transmission is working on two major expansions. Phase IV will consist of pipe
and compression to extend its network to southwest Florida and add capacity of nearly 200 MMcf/d.
This project is scheduled to be in service by mid-2001.
The proposed Phase V expansion, once completed, will add approximately 400 MMcf/d of capacity and
has an inservice date of 2002. The proposal was filed in December with FERC.
The 4,795-mile pipeline had average daily capacity of 1.5 Bcf in 1999.
Northern Border Pipeline Northern Border Pipeline runs from the U.S./Canadian border in Montana to
Illinois, transporting approximately 23 percent of all Canadian gas imports to the U.S. The pipeline
measures 1,214 miles and averaged daily deliveries of 2.4 Bcf in 1999. The Chicago Project expansion
was put in service at the end of 1998. By interconnecting with multiple pipeline systems, this link
fundamentally changed North American markets by establishing a new relationship between Canadian
and NYMEX gas prices. Northern Border has proposed a second expansion, Project 2000, to connect
to
Northern Indiana Public Service Company and its industrial customer base in the Midwest.
"Bredero Price's origins date back to the HC Price company, which has operated in the United States
since the 1930s and was acquired by Dresser Industries Inc. in 1993.
In 1996, Dresser and Shaw Industries Ltd. of Canada merged the pipecoating businesses of Bredero
Price and Shaw Pipe Protection to form the Bredero-Shaw Group, the world's largest pipecoating
company. Dresser was subsequently acquired by the Dallas-based Halliburton Co., giving Halliburton a
50 percent ownership stake in Bredero-Shaw."
(11-15-00) Pipecoating plant to create 125 jobs - $30 million Theodore facility tied to booming oil and
gas industry in Gulf "Bredero-Shaw comprises a group of pipe coating companies owned jointly by
Halliburton Company of Dallas and ShawCor, Ltd. of Toronto. Both Halliburton and ShawCor
specialize in products and services for the energy and resource industries. Through the years, the
"Bredero-Shaw approach" has been to provide the highest quality pipe coating services to its customers.
Today, companies in the Bredero-Shaw Group can be found throughout the United States, Canada and
Internationally, serving the pipeline industry with corrosion coatings, weight coatings, insulation
coatings and other related products and services. With 27 permanent plants located on 6 continents,
54
Bredero-Shaw has grown to serve most world-wide markets. Today, Bredero-Shaw is the world's
largest international applicator of pipeline coatings for the oil and gas industry, both onshore and
offshore."
DICK CHENEY WAS AT THE HELM OF HALLIBURTON UNTIL HE BECAME THE VICE
PRESIDENT. ENRON IS WELL CONNECTED TO W. BUSH AND HIS ENERGY ADVISERS
REVEALED LARGE ENRON HOLDINGS.
Key Bush Energy Advisers Reveal Large Enron Holdings! - By Joseph Kahn - New York Times - 6-3-1
White House Acknowledges Rove Participated in Energy Meetings
The full extent of Enron's influence is not known because W. Bush is still ignoring a demand from the
General Accounting Office for the names of lobbyists and business executives the Bush administration
met with in formulating its energy plan.
Cheney reportedly is (was?) a major stockholder in Enron. Wendy L. Gramm, the wife of Phil Gramm
(R.Texas), is the Director for Enron Corp.
Senator Gramm and W. Bush had been blocking the investigation of Osama Bin Laden's money
laudering operations.
The Story:
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE PAPER TRAIL; Roadblocks Cited In Efforts to Trace Bin
Laden's Money
By TIM WEINER AND DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
Published: September 20, 2001A six-year struggle to uncover Osama bin Laden's financial network
failed because American officials did not skillfully use the legal tools they had, did not realize they
needed stronger weapons, and faced resistance at home and abroad, officials involved in the effort say.
Federal officials say they have not persuaded foreign banks to open their books to investigators and that
in this country, a law that would have allowed the United States to penalize foreign banks that did not
cooperate was blocked last year by a single United States senator. Current laws and regulations give the
government less authority to seize the assets of terrorists than of drug cartels, one federal investigator
said; it may seize only assets that are the direct proceeds of terrorist violence. For drug cartels or
organized crime gangs, it can seize any assets used to support their activities.
Investigators also attribute their inability to pierce Mr. bin Laden's financial network to an ancient
system of cash transfers based on trust, not detailed records, that they say has spread from countries like
Pakistan into the United States. Since last week's attacks, proposals to curb money laundering by
terrorists have suddenly gained support among old opponents -- including the Bush administration --
after languishing for two years. The White House says it now wants an aggressive attack on money
laundering, including stepped-up seizure of assets. The bin Laden organization operates in 35 countries
and needs to move money to its members, American intelligence officials say.
Tracing the money could reveal not only terrorists' sources of support, but their intentions. But present
and former government officials say that since the mid-1990's, they did not fully use the legal tools they
had to wage this difficult fight. ''We could have starved the organization if we put our minds to it,'' said
Richard Palmer, who gained experience in money laundering as the Central Intelligence Agency's station
chief in Moscow during the 1990's. ''The government has had the ability to track these accounts for
some time.'' Congress is now reviving a proposal killed last year by Senator Phil Gramm, the Texas
Republican who was then chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. The bill, introduced by the
Clinton administration, would give the Treasury secretary broad power to bar foreign countries and
banks from access to the American financial market unless they cooperated with money-laundering
55
investigations. It was strongly opposed by the banking industry and Mr. Gramm. ''I was right then and I
am right now'' in opposing the bill, Mr. Gramm said yesterday. He called the bill ''totalitarian'' and added,
''The way to deal with terrorists is to hunt them down and kill them.'' But the bill is gathering support
from both parties. ''I would be amazed if there is not a sea change,'' said Senator John Kerry, the
Massachusetts Democrat, who is sponsoring the bill with Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of
Iowa. He said the opposition was based on ''ridiculously phony'' arguments.
Even after the attacks last week, the banking industry continues to doubt the need for new rules to
combat money laundering, a lobbyist said. Most experts say the funds used to finance the attacks here
probably came into this country in small amounts either through wire transfers or through the use of
brokers that belong to a paperless underground banking system. That system of brokers is often referred
to by its Hindi name, ''hawala,'' meaning ''in trust.'' It enables individuals to transfer sizable sums of cash
from their country to recipients in another country without the funds ever crossing borders. The system,
which has spread to the United States, is particularly popular in countries like Pakistan and India where
people want to avoid paying taxes or bribes to officials when transferring money across borders, experts
said. ''Somebody will come into the office of a hawala broker in Pakistan and say, 'I want $100,000 to
get to somebody in Vero Beach who is going to come in and identify themselves as Cupid,' '' said
Jonathan M. Winer, who led the State Department's international law enforcement efforts from 1994 to
1999 and now practices law in Washington. The Pakistani broker, Mr. Winer explained, will contact a
counterpart in the United States, often using the Internet, then mail him a chit or agree on a code word
to complete the transaction. Mr. Winer said such brokers might have been used to transfer sizable sums
of money destined for terrorists in this country because carrying large amounts of cash posed too many
risks. ''The two brokers have absolute trust in each other,'' said Rowan Bosworth-Davies, an expert on
money laundering at the Control Risks Group. ''They often come from the same clan and that is why
nothing is written down or records kept.'' Congress passed a law in 1993 requiring check-cashing
businesses and informal financial enterprises like hawalas to register with the government and report
transactions over $3,000.
But the Clinton administration did not publish all the regulations until 1999. The Bush administration
ordered a further delay until June 30, 2002. Jimmy Gurule, the Treasury under secretary for
enforcement, said yesterday that the administration, in light of last week's attack, might move up the
date. The effort to track the bin Laden group's money began in earnest when President Bill Clinton
signed a classified presidential order on Oct. 21, 1995. The secret order, Presidential Decision Directive
42, ordered the Departments of Justice, State and Treasury, the National Security Council, the C.I.A.
and other intelligence agencies to increase and integrate their efforts against international money
laundering by terrorists and criminals. The government agencies joined together to try to penetrate the
bin Laden network of businesses, charities, banks and front companies.
They failed. The ball was handed to people who were generally incompetent to handle the intricate task,
said one Clinton administration official directly involved in the effort to drain or divert the money
flowing in and out of the bin Laden organization. The government agencies given the job suffered from
''a lack of institutional knowledge, a lack of expertise,'' said William Wechsler, a National Security
Council staff member under Mr. Clinton. ''We could have been doing much more earlier. It didn't
happen.'' Then attackers blew up two American embassies in Africa in August 1998. Richard A. Clarke,
the government's counterterrorism coordinator, set up a new government team. He ordered it to find out
how much money the bin Laden organization had, where it came from, how it moved around the world
-- and to stop it. ''We had only marginal successes,'' said Mr. Wechsler, who led the new team in 1998
and 1999. The United Arab Emirates imposed money laundering laws and China banned flights by the
Afghan state airline, Ariana, at the United States' urging, officials said.
The lack of great success was ''mostly due to the limited assistance we received from key countries
abroad,'' Mr. Wechsler said. He blamed ''their lack of political will or weaknesses in their laws which fail
to effectively regulate their financial institutions and charities.'' Until last week's attacks, the Bush
administration was not much more enthusiastic about new money laundering laws than Mr. Gramm. Led
56
by its chief economic adviser, Lawrence B. Lindsey, the administration did not want to pressure
international banks in the United States and elsewhere to open their books. Now the White House is
setting up a new agency, called the Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Center, run by the Treasury
Department with help from law enforcement and intelligence services, to try anew to track bin Laden's
finances. The financial architecture of the bin Laden organization has not changed radically since he set
up operations near the Khyber Pass in the mid-1980's and worked side by side with the C.I.A. to support
the rebels fighting Soviet forces in Afghanistan, United States officials said. ''The money movement and
fund-raising system is the same,'' Mr. Wechsler said.
Correction: September 21, 2001, Friday A front-page article yesterday about unsuccessful efforts to
trace Osama bin Laden's financial network gave a misspelled surname in some copies for the
Massachusetts Democratic senator who is co-sponsor of a bill on money-laundering investigations. He is
John Kerry, not Kerrey.
Correction: October 5, 2001, Friday Articles on Wednesday and on Sept. 20 about an underground
system of transferring money internationally mistranslated the term ''hawala,'' by which it is known. (The
error also appeared on Wednesday in the daily capsule summary of the terrorism investigations.) The
word, originally Arabic and now used in several languages in Southwest Asia, means a bill of exchange
or promissory note, not trust or in trust. Also, why did Bush give the Taliban, which Osama Bin Laden
is the head of, $43 million dollars last May, if theTreasury Department, since 1998, has been trying to
block his assets and made it illegal for any US bank or business todo business with him?Bush's Faustian
Deal With the TalibanDid this $43 million dollars have anything to do with a letter that The Taliban
delivered to Bush last March?State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said he did not know who
signed the letter to Bush on behalf of the Taliban .
DO WE DARE CALL THIS TREASON?The SILK ROAD series, posted at
www.RumorMillNews.com, gives the REAL story of the BUSH/OSAMA BIN
LADEN/AFGHANISTAN connection.PART 1: THE AFGHAN KILLING FIELDS: BLOOD FOR
OIL/GAS TO CHINAhttp://www.rumormillnews.net/cgi-bin/config.pl?read=12125PART 2: US
"SECRET" PLANS FOR AFGHANISTANhttp://www.rumormillnews.net/cgibin/
config.pl?read=12126The most massive so-called "terrorist" attacks on U.S. soil since the Oklahoma
City bombings of 1995, were known, a week ahead of time, by the American CIA. Among the foreign
intelligence agencies who penetrated the plots were the French CIA and Israel's The Mossad, units of
both often working with one another. Foreign intelligence sources confirm the validity of this story. And
they state that they informed the U.S. secret police who absolutely failed, neglected, and outright
refused to take action as to known prior specifics of which the top-level of the CIA were informed in
advance. As made known to the CIA, were the following, among other details: [1] That George Herbert
Walker Bush, as President, at the close of the Persian Gulf War, 1991, arranged to bring into the U.S.
some four thousand Iraqi military officers, some from intelligence units, and their families.
[2] Some 550 of these officers became residents in Lincoln, Nebraska, AND TWO THOUSAND OF
THEM took up residence in Oklahoma City. In a watered down story, CBS' "60 Minutes" Program did a
segment once on this about Lincoln, Nebraska but said NOTHING about the Iraqi military officers in
Oklahoma City.
[3] The financial and other provisions for them and their families were arranged by the Elder Bush, and
then quietly continued by Bill Clinton as President, and perpetuated by George W. Bush as White House
"resident" and "occupant". The arrangements included financial subsidies, housing, and employment for
the Iraqi officers. [A brave Oklahoma City TV Reporter, Jayna Davis, on their local TV station, put on
the air several stories about the Iraqi connection to the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building, the
bombing done with the aid of domestic dissidents as surrogates. A group bought out the TV station and
silenced her. Timothy McVeigh's chief defense counsel for the murder trial, Stephen Jones, on behalf of
McVeigh, filed an extra-ordinary petition in the next higher court, just prior to the murder trial. To no
avail, Jones tried to force Denver U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch to compel the American CIA to
disgorge records held by them showing prior U.S. knowledge of the bombing, as confirmed by other
57
known records, some of them also in secret court records. We have a copy of the 185 page U.S. Court
of Appeals, 10th Circuit, petition filed by Jones and almost uniformly ignored by the American monopoly
press. The petition raises the Iraqi connection.]
[4] The foreign intelligence agencies informed the American CIA that guns would be planted on-board
as many as ten U.S. commercial airflights. This to be done by airplane clean-up crew members who are
generally not subject to airport security provisions. These workers most likely did not know the purpose
of the gun-planting.
[5] The CIA also was informed prior to the "terrorist" attacks scheduled for "911" Emergency Day
[September 11], that highly skilled Iraqi pilots, among the four thousand Iraqi officers resident in the
U.S., would take over the commercial flights, by retrieving the weapons concealed onboard, and then
commandeering the flight deck.
[6] The Elder Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush, all were in a position to know that the Iraqi officers
that they provided for included some double-agents. The FBI Counter-Intelligence Division at no time
was instructed to do anything about these double-agents in a position to commit mischief, murder, and
mayhem, on U.S. soil.
[7] As I revealed a week prior to the "terrorist" attacks, some foreign television networks were busy
preparing lengthy documentaries that would scandalize George W. Bush and other members of the Bush
Family, including the Elder Bush and Jeb Bush. The subject matter included how forty million dollars in
dope funds were used by the Bush
Family to reportedly corrupt South Florida DEMOCRATS to abandon the recount even ahead of the
U.S. Supreme Court ruling installing George W. Bush as the "resident" and "occupant" of the White
House. The dope funds came reportedly from Bush Family business partner, Carlos Lehder, co-founder
of the U.S./Colombia medellin dope cartel.
[Visit our website story, "Chandra Levy Affair, Part Two".] I discussed this on radio talk shows.
[8] As part of the targetting of the World Trade Center buildings, a group of surrogates for the Iraqi
military officers, reportedly spent considerable time within one of the buildings, with building security
officers somehow oblivious of their presence.
[9] As the CIA top officials were informed and had prior knowledge, the purpose of the "terrorist"
attacks was to effectively paralyze the financial infrastructure of the U.S. Some of the most important
stock and bond houses in the world, with their key people having loads of inside knowledge and hard to
replace trading tricks and expertise, were located in the known-to-be-targetted twin towers of the World
Trade Center, New York City. It was like blowing up the main "financial factory" and destroying their
inventory. The so-called "back-up" records kept parked across the river in New Jersey, are not only
inadequate but cannot help reconstruct various accounts and transactions in the works.
Financial experts tell us the "back up" records parked in New Jersey, may NOT be sufficient to re-start
the American financial apparatus. Some of the experts are loudly grumbling that they should have early
on seen Federal Reserve Czar Alan Greenspan on the television explaining about the financial
ramifications. Of course, some suppose that Americans would panic and run out of control. So we are
dealt with like little children.
[10] It is a serious mistake, according to savvy American and foreign intelligence sources, to blame the
Emergency all on Osama bin Laden. As readers of our website are aware, we have long pointed out that
bin Laden is reportedly in the Mid-East Construction business. His reputed partners? The family of
Sharon PERCY Rockefeller. She is the wife of John D. Rockefeller 4th (D., W.Va.), great grandson of
the founder of the infamous Standard Oil Trust that used to bomb their own obsolete buildings to falsely
blame onto their competitors. Bin Laden's so-called "secret" accounts, which the White House has said
they would like to freeze, are or have been actually reportedly in the Harris Bank, Chicago, joint
accounts with the family of Sharon PERCY Rockefeller.
[11] The Saudi Royal Family actually consists of some five thousand members, some of whom actually
are for the U.S. and some anti-U.S. Some of them have bankrolled Iraq's war against Iran, 1980 to
1988, to destroy some oil facilities and keep the price of oil HIGH. The foreign intelligence agencies,
58
that penetrated the plots to be carried out on U.S. soil, are aware that some of the Saudi royals are
actually sympathetic to the Iraqis destroying the World Trade Center Buildings and in part, wrecking the
Pentagon. [As if the American CIA did not ALREADY have their
own knowledge of this.] Whenever there is a political assassination or some other unusual violent event,
what is the key question the oil-soaked, spy-riddled monopoly press ALWAYS fails to ask? WHO
BENEFITS. With a scandal about to break against George W. Bush, he and his circle had an interest
NOT to stop these things from happening. And to divert attention. The White House has a strong motive
to silence critics and urge people TO RALLY AROUND THE PRESIDENT. Simple-minded folks, of
course, often poorly informed,do not understand how the ruling classes would
shed the blood of thousands if not millions of innocent people, in some instigated war, to avoid dealing
with the apparent on-coming economic disasters. In the midst of this prior-knowledge emergency, who
dares now to point to the Bush Family as reputed business partners of the major kingpin, Carlos Lehder,
of the U.S./Colombia medellin dope cartel? Or how huge dope money bought the Electoral College trick
in Florida and corrupted the U.S. Supreme Court's "gang of five". This is America's REICHSTAG fire.
Adolph Hitler burned down the German parliament and falsely blamed his enemies and had them
rounded up and put in the concentration camps. Has the U.S. Constitution now been revoked? More
coming. Stay tuned.
Lyndon LaRouche
In the following article, LaRouche explains the following : Now, there are two possible interpretations,
technically, of what happened on Sept. 11. One: That, at a very high level, inside the U.S. security
establishment, people who, in one sense, are functioning—in one capacity, are also functioning as a kind
of a "Mr. X." And, these fellows, of very high capability, and knowledge, and skills, and connections,
actually rigged what happened on Sept. 11. Because, there were, presumably, security screens, which
existed, which should have prevented all, or most of that from happening.
And, apparently, the screens were defeated. Or, the second conclusion: They were not up. And here's a
couple of quotes from Saddam Hussein :
"The true believers cannot but condemn this act, not because it has been committed by
America against a Muslim people but because it is an aggression perpetrated outside
international law," Saddam said in a statement.
"America could have further recourse to force, which could last some time ... and spread to other
countries as part of the settling of accounts sought by the United States," he added, echoing widespread
Arab fears that the operation against the Taliban and Osama bin Laden could lead to a wider regional
confrontation. Apparently, Saddam Hussein is quite a "world player", judging by the words he chooses
to use. This does not sound like a guy who rides a camel around. Is he really the "terrorist" that we say
he is?
It appears to me that Saddam is well versed himself in law and international politics. He seems to know
something about "commercial law" as well. It does seem very odd to me, at least, that he chooses to use
the term "settling of accounts". That is strictly a "commerial term", unless, of course, the whole world is
really commerial now!!!! What do you think????? - You see, Christianity is really "Commerce", so
therefore, those who partake in it, technically are Christians, as well as Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin
Laden. They are not really Muslims at all. Neither is anyone who partakes in the "commercial credit
system of commerce". They are ALL Christians.
Now, if you have read all of the above info., you should have a much better understanding of what I am
saying. --
The United States has a history of these things. We actually have a track record going. They are
comparing this to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Well, let's go back in history a couple of times and
examine something very important that has been a part of U.S. policy since around WWII. It is the "let's
pretend we don't know what's going on, and wait for our enemy to strike, even if we have to pretend we
59
are looking the other way to get them to attack", strategy.
When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, it was later revealed that our intelligence knew that this was
going to happen.
"The question was how we should maneuver them into ..firing the first shot." - Secretary of War, Henry
Stimson, (Ed. -
Skull and Bones member) before Pearl Harbor, 1941.
Going even further back, the sinking of the Luisitania (incorrect spell.), we knew about as well. I will do
some research and dig these items up shortly. But, the fact is that this is the pattern of our policy. When
Saddam Hussain told April Glaspy in 1991 that Kuwait had better stop "slant drilling" (Zapata
Offshore/George Bush wells) into Iraqi territory or he was going to invade Kuwait, April Glaspy told
him that is "not our concern". Then when he went in, we sent our troops to the gulf to stomp him, and
kill tens of thousands of Iraqi's.
Should we put it past the powers-that-be to blow up their own Trade Center, or rather, "allow it to
happen" in order to accomplish some greater objective? Even if it means killing thousands of our own?
They kill us with chemtrails, vaccinations, bio-warfare like AIDS etc., and the poisoning of our food
supply. They have let millions die in the Congo in the last few years. Why should we put it past them to
do this, too. I am not saying this is the case, but I have already heard the newscaster talk about
"implementing the plan, that when implemented, and put into effect, the plan would be in place to deal
with this situation". I actually heard them discuss this, and there is only (1) "plan" they refer to and that
is called "Martial Law". -- It is called "The Plan".
The reason I say this is America's "Karma" is because that is the way I see it. We turn our eyes and ears
away from the truth, the fact that we endure and allow criminals to run our government and do things in
our name which we would never do ourselves. We do not face the criminals and terrorists in our own
government who blew up the Oklahoma Federal Building. They already killed hundreds including
children, but we refuse to believe it and think the patriots are crackpots, so we fail to "act" and sit by
passively and sheepishly allowing these evil perpetrators to make decisions for us, instead of doing what
we should have done long ago, and locked them all up for "Treason" and "crimes against
humanity".
Everything we have done up to now, all the atrocities in the world that we are directly or indirectly
responsible for, not because we deserve it because we suck, but because we sit back idely and we have
others act and think for us, even when they act against our wishes...this is what Karma we are reaping.
The rewards of being unconscious of what we are doing as a nation, and the result of what others are
doing who we have allowed to run our country for us.
My heart goes out to those who suffered losses and my prayers go out to those who died. It is a sad day
in the country and I am not trying to make light of it, I am only trying to help point out some of the
lesser known facts about this situation.
Before we strike with total blindness and abandon, please read the following words...
“We have suffered so much. Every night so many children go to bed hungry,” said Zalmai, a teacher
who, like many Afghans, uses only one name. “What do we have to live for? Let the rockets come and
set this whole country on fire once and for all.”
Tears ran down my eye as I read this quote. It was the first time since this whole thing occured that I felt
really bad. It was really sad to realize that even I have anger at the situation and loss of security in this
country, but it is really, really sad to think that American's would like to kill muslims and Afhganis just to
"get even" and "take revenge", when alot of these people, the civilians, have so much less than us in this
country, and when we lose a financial building and a few thousand people and our precious way of life is
"disturbed", we would first seek to "kill all the muslims or Afhganis" with total abandon to all regard for
what is "right" and "just". Isn't this what we are supposed to be standing for??? Freedom and
Democracy. But what about the freedom of the suppressed women in Afhganistan who will undoubtably
be killed and slaughtered by the hundreds or thousands from a massive attack on their country. What
about the people who just want to have a decent life and not hurt anyone. We will be killing many of
60
these people and again angering the world at our "unjust policies". If we overreact, we will be judged by
the world once more for our insensitivity and outright "terrorism".
When George Bush used the word "crusade", some people thought he must have been unaware that he
said that, or in the Muslim world, some undoubtably looked upon him as evil. The truth, I believe, is that
he did not "intend" to say it, but it was rather, a "freudian slip" and he realized right after that he couldn't
have stopped himself if he tried. This is how God speaks the truth to us all. We should learn to listen.
That is not to say though, that he is not evil. I never said that. I repeat, I never said he was not evil.
I would like to say, that as a conspiracy researcher. that it is getting difficult to keep up with all the
conspiracies. I have discovered a new conspiracy already. There is, at this time, in this country, a
conspiracy to inundate conspiracy researchers with so many conspiracies that they can no longer keep
up with them all. -- This might even be the biggest conspiracy yet!!!
Within 1 week, the United States has amassed a coalition (gang of like-minded criminal thugs) which
include the likely usuals Britain, France, and now Italy, too. Russia, Jordan, Pakistan, and India. But, the
strange thing is the support coming from places like Iran, the condolences from Iraq, and many other
neighboring countries voicing their partial to full support. Sudan and Cuba? Do you remember when
Bush voiced his sentiments like "this is the time to decide where you stand", for those countries who
have not made a clear decision? -- This was akin to asking the question
"All right now, listen, our empire is the largest and the strongest in the world and we have a group of
nations, bundled together tight with rope and bound with an AXE, and we are ready to take more
territory for the British Empire and grab more resources for our mutual exploitation, the question I am
asking you fellow nations is, are you a part of
our global 'brotherhood of death' and will you support all that is necessary to accomplish our goals for
complete control of the world and it's resources, or are you going to stand in the way and 'harbor
terrorists' and incur the full wrath of the New World Order?"
George Bush , in his address to the nation : "Our greatest friend of all is Great Britain”. Every nation
has a decision to make, either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. This is the world's fight,
this is civilizations fight It's no wonder were sending missiles all over the world. Our Penile Projectiles
are much, much larger, and more powerful than our foes. They can emit any number of substances to
cover the population with. They can impregnate impenatrable fortresses of leaders and bring whole
countries to their knees begging for submission. Between our Oblisk and our Oval Office we are the
epitomy of orgiastic ecstacy. And now, we have the right leaders, in the right place, and we are
announcing to the world our blood-lust orgy we are about to partake in. Any nations want to join in the
fun?
The Rothschilds
"The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it's profits or so dependant
on it's favors, that there will be no opposition from that class." -- Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863
"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" -- Mayer Amschel
Bauer Rothschild
Senators & Congressmen
"Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders. The
accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of
Congress and manipulates the credit of the United States" -- Sen. Barry Goldwater (Rep. AR)
"This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President
[Wilson} signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized....the worst
legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill." --
Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. , 1913
"From now on, depressions will be scientifically created." -- Congressman Charles A.
Lindbergh Sr. , 1913
"The financial system has been turned over to the Federal Reserve Board. That Board asministers the
61
finance system by authority of a purely profiteering group. The system is Private, conducted for the sole
purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people's money" -- Charles A.
Lindbergh Sr., 1923
"The Federal Reserve bank buys government bonds without one penny..." -- Congressman
Wright Patman, Congressional Record, Sept 30, 1941
"We have, in this country, one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the
Federal Reserve Board. This evil institution has impoverished the people of the United States and has
practically bankrupted our government. It has done this through the corrupt practices of the moneyed
vultures who control it". -- Congressman Louis T. McFadden in 1932 (Rep. Pa)
"The Federal Reserve banks are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen.
There is not a man within the sound of my voice who does not know that this nation is run by the
International bankers -- Congressman Louis T. McFadden (Rep. Pa)
"Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are the United States government's institutions.
They are not government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people
of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign swindlers" -- Congressional
Record 12595-12603 -- Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the Committee on Banking and
Currency (12 years) June 10, 1932
"I have never seen more Senators express discontent with their jobs....I think the major cause is
that, deep down in our hearts, we have been accomplices in doing something terrible and
unforgiveable to our wonderful country. Deep down in our heart, we know that we have given our
children a legacy of bankruptcy. We have defrauded our country to get ourselves elected." -- John
Danforth (R-Mo)
"These 12 corporations together cover the whole country and monopolize and use for private
gain every dollar of the public currency..." -- Mr. Crozier of Cincinnati, before Senate Banking and
Currency Committee - 1913
"The [Federal Reserve Act] as it stands seems to me to open the way to a vast inflation of the
currency... I do not like to think that any law can be passed that will make it possible to submerge
the gold standard in a flood of irredeemable paper currency." -- Henry Cabot Lodge Sr., 1913
From the Federal Reserves Own Admissions
"When you or I write a check there must be sufficient funds in out account to cover the check,
but when the Federal Reserve writes a check there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn.
When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating money." -- Putting it simply, Boston Federal
Reserve Bank
"Neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities, intrinsically, a 'dollar' bill is just
a piece of paper. Deposits are merely book entries." -- Modern Money Mechanics Workbook,
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, 1975
"The Federal Reserve system pays the U.S. Treasury 020.60 per thousand notes --a little over
2 cents each-- without regard to the face value of the note. Federal Reserve Notes, incidently, are
the only type of currency now produced for circulation. They are printed exclusively by the
Treasury's Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and the $20.60 per thousand price reflects the Bureau's
full cost of production. Federal Reserve Notes are printed in 01, 02, 05, 10, 20, 50, and 100 dollar
denominations only; notes of 500, 1000, 5000, and 10,000 denominations were last printed in
1945." --Donald J. Winn, Assistant to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve system
"We are completely dependant on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar
we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous;
if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system.... It is the most important
subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present
civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied very soon."
--Robert H. Hamphill, Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank
62
From General Law
"The entire taxing and monetary systems are hereby placed under the U.C.C. (Uniform
Commercial Code)" -- The Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966
"There is a distinction between a 'debt discharged' and a debt 'paid'. When discharged, the debt
still exists though divested of it's charter as a legal obligation during the operation of the discharge,
something of the original vitality of the debt continues to exist, which may be transferred, even
though the transferee takes it subject to it's disability incident to the discharge." --Stanek vs. White,
172 Minn.390, 215 N.W. 784
"The Federal Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities..." -- Lewis vs. United States
9th Circuit 1992
"The regional Federal Reserve banks are not government agencies. ...but are independent,
privately owned and locally controlled corporations." -- Lewis vs. United States, 680 F. 2d 1239
9th Circuit 1982
Past Presidents, not including the Founding Fathers
"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and
commerce." -- James A. Garfield, President of the United States
"A great industrial nation is controlled by it's system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated
in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely
controlled and dominated governments in the world--no longer a government of free opinion, no
longer a government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and
duress of small groups of dominant men." --President Woodrow Wilson
Founding Father's Quotes on Banking
Thomas Jefferson
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.
Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The
issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to
whom it properly belongs."--Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President.
Andrew Jackson
"If Congress has the right [it doesn't] to issue paper money [currency], it was given to them to be
used by...[the government] and not to be delegated to individuals or corporations" -- President
Andrew Jackson, Vetoed Bank Bill of 1836
James Madison
"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent
means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it's issuance". --
James Madison
Misc. Sources
"Banks lend by creating credit. They create the means of payment out of nothing" -- Ralph M.
Hawtrey, Secretary of the British Treasury
"To expose a 15 Trillion dollar ripoff of the American people by the stockholders of the 1000
largest corporations over the last 100 years will be a tall order of business." -- Buckminster Fuller
"Every Congressman, every Senator knows precisely what causes inflation...but can't, [won't]
support the drastic reforms to stop it [repeal of the Federal Reserve Act] because it could cost him
his job." -- Robert A. Heinlein, Expanded Universe
"It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for
if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." -- Henry Ford
"[Every circulating FRN] represents a one dollar debt to the Federal Reserve system." -- Money
Facts, House Banking and Currency Committee
"...the increase in the assets of the Federal Reserve banks from 143 million dollars in 1913 to
63
45 billion dollars in 1949 went directly to the private stockholders of the [federal reserve] banks." --
Eustace Mullins
"As soon as Mr. Roosevelt took office, the Federal Reserve began to buy government securities
at the rate of ten million dollars a week for 10 weeks, and created one hundred million dollars in new
[checkbook] currency, which alleviated the critical famine of money and credit, and the factories
started hiring people again." -- Eustace Mullins
"Should government refrain from regulation (taxation), the worthlessness of the money becomes
apparent and the fraud can no longer be concealed." -- John Maynard Keynes, "Consequences of
Peace."
"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the earth. Take it away from
them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough
deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will
disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you
wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create
deposits".- SIR JOSIAH STAMP,(President of the Bank of England in the 1920's, the second richest
man in Britain):
"The modern Banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process
is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banks can in fact inflate,
mint and unmint the modern ledger-entry currency".- MAJOR L .L. B. ANGUS:
"While boasting of our noble deeds were careful to conceal the ugly fact that by an
iniquitous money system we have nationalized a system of oppression which, though more refined, is not
less cruel than the old system of chattel slavery. - Horace Greeley
"People who will not turn a shovel full of dirt on the project (Muscle Shoals Dam)
nor contribute a pound of material, will collect more money from the United States than will the People
who supply all the material and do all the work. This is the terrible thing about interest ...But here is the
point: If the Nation can issue a dollar bond it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond
good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the
money broker collect twice the amount of the bond and an addi- tional 20%. Whereas the currency, the
honest sort provided by the Constitution pays nobody but those who contribute in some useful way. It is
absurd to say our Country can issue bonds and cannot issue currency.
Both are promises to pay, but one fattens the usurer and the other helps the People. If the currency
issued by the People were no good, then the bonds would be no good, either. It is a terrible situation
when the Government, to insure the National Wealth, must go in debt and submit to ruinous interest
charges at the hands of men who control the fictitious value of gold. Interest is the invention of Satan". -
THOMAS A. EDISON
"By this means government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people,
and not one man in a million will detect the theft."--John Maynard Keynes (the father of 'Keynesian
Economics' which our nation now endures) in his book "THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF
THE PEACE" (1920).
"Capital must protect itself in every way...Debts must be collected and loans and mortgages
foreclosed as soon as possible. When through a process of law the common people have lost their
homes, they will be more tractable and more easily governed by the strong arm of the law applied
by the central power of leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders.
This is well known among our principal men now engaged in forming an imperialism of capitalism to
govern the world. By dividing the people we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over
questions of no importance to us except as teachers of the common herd."--
Taken from the Civil Servants' Year Book, "The Organizer" January 1934.
"The Federal Reserve banks, while not part of the government,..." -- United States budget for
1991 and 1992 part 7, page 10
The Money Power! It is the greatest power on earth; and it is arrayed against Labour. No other power
64
that is or ever was can be named with it...it attacks us through the Press - a monster with a thousand
lying tongues, a beast surpassing in foulness any conceived by the mythology that invented dragons,
were wolves, harpies, ghouls and vampires.
It thunders against us from innumerable platforms and pulpits. The mystic machinery of the churches it
turns into an engine of wrath for our destruction. Yes, so far as we are concerned, the headquarters of
the Money Power is Britain. But the Money Power is not a British institution; it is cosmopolitan.
It is of no nationality, but of all nationalities. It dominates the world. The Money Power has corrupted
the faculties of the human soul, and tampered with the sanity of the human intellect... Editorial from
1907 edition of The Brisbane Worker (Australia)
...I am convinced that the agreement [Bretton Woods] will enthrone a world dictatorship of private
finance more complete and terrible than and Hitlerite dream.
It offers no solution of world problems, but quite blatantly sets up controls which will reduce the
smaller nations to vassal states and make every government the mouthpiece and tool of International
Finance.
It will undermine and destroy the democratic institutions of this country - in fact as effectively as ever
the Fascist forces could have done - pervert and paganise our Christian ideals; and will undoubtedly
present a new menace, endangering world peace.
World collaboration of private financial interests can only mean mass unemployment, slavery, misery,
degredation and financial destruction.
Therefore, as freedom loving Australians we should reject this infamous proposal. -- Labor Minister of
Australia, Eddie Ward, during the inception of the World Bank and Bretton Woods, he gave this
warning.
The United States is Still a British Colony
It's not an easy thing having to tell someone they have been conned into believing they are free. For
some, to accept this is comparable to denying God Almighty.
You have to be made to understand that the United States is a corporation, which is a continuation of
the corporate Charters created by the king of England. And that the states upon ratifying their individual
State constitutions, became sub corporations under and subordinate to the United States. The counties
and municipalities became sub corporations under the State Charters.
I have always used a copy of the North Carolina Constitution provided by the State, I should have
known better to take this as the finial authority. To my knowledge the following quote has not been in
the Constitution the State hands out or those in use in the schools. The 1776 North Carolina
Constitution created a new corporate Charter, and declared our individual freedoms.
However, the same corporate Charter, reserved the king's title to the land, which restored, and did not
diminish, his grants that were made in his early Charters. If you remember, I made the claim that legally
we are still subject to the king. In the below quote you will see that the king declares our taxation will be
forever, and that a fourth of all gold and silver will be returned to him.
"YIELDlNG AND PAYING yearly, to us, our heirs and Successors, for the same, the yearly Rent of
Twenty Marks of Lawful money of England, at the Feast of All Saints, yearly, forever, The First payment
thereof to begin and be made on the Feast of All Saints which shall be in the year of Our Lord One
thousand six hundred Sixty and five; AND also, the fourth part of all Gold and Silver Ore which, with
the limits aforesaid, shall, from time to time, happen to be found."
(Feast of All Saints occurred November 1 of each year.)
The Carolina Charter, 1663
I know Patriots will have a hard time with this, because as I said earlier, they would have to deny what
they have been taught from an early age. You have to continue to go back in historical documents and
see if what you have been taught is correct. The following quote is from section 25 of the 1776 North
Carolina Constitution, Declaration of Rights.
And provided further, that nothing herein contained shall affect the titles or possessions of individuals
65
holding or claiming under the laws heretofore in force, or grants heretofore made by the late King
George II, or his predecessors, or the late lords proprietors, or any of them.
Declaration of Rights 1776, North Carolina Constitution
Can it be any plainer? Nobody reads, they take what is told to them by their schools and government as
gospel, and never look any further. They are quick to attack anyone that does because it threatens their
way of life, rocks the boat in other words. Read the following quote from a court case:
definition given by Blackstone, vol. 2, p. 244. I shall therefore only cite that respectable authority in his
own words:
"Escheat, we may remember, was one of the fruits and consequences of feudal tenure; the word itself is
originally French or Norman, in which language it signifies chance or accident, and with us denotes an
obstruction of the course of descent, and a consequent determination of the tenure by some unforeseen
contingency, in which case the estate naturally results back, by a kind of reversion, to the original
grantor, or lord of the fee."
Every person knows in what manner the citizens acquired the property of the soil within the limits of this
State. Being dissatisfied with the measures of the British Government, they revolted from it, assumed
the government into their own hands, seized and took possession of all the estates of the King of Great
Britain and his subjects, appropriated them to their own use, and defended their possessions against the
claims of Great Britain, during a long and bloody war, and finally obtained a relinquishment of those
claims by the treaty of Paris. But this State had no title to the territory prior to the title of the King of
Great Britain and his subjects, nor did it ever claim as lord paramount to them. This State was not the
original grantor to them, nor did they ever hold by any kind of tenure under the State, or owe it any
allegiance or other duties to which an escheat is annexed. How then can it be said that the lands in this
case naturally result back by a kind of reversion to this State, to a source from whence it never issued,
and from tenants who never held under it?
Might it not be stated with equal propriety that this country escheated to the King of Great Britain from
the Aborigines, when he drove them off, and took and maintained possession of their country? At the
time of the revolution, and before the Declaration of Independence, the collective body of the people
had neither right to nor possession of the territory of this State; it is true some individuals had a right to,
and were in possession of certain portions of it, which they held under grants from the King of Great
Britain; but they did not hold, nor did any of his subjects hold, under the collective
body of the people, who had no power to grant any part of it. After the Declaration of Independence and
the establishment of the Constitution, the people may be said first to have taken possession of this
country, at least so much of it as was not previously appropriated to individuals. Then their sovereignty
commenced, and with it a right to all the property not previously vested in individual citizens, with all
the other rights of sovereignty, and among those the right of escheats.
This sovereignty did not accrue to them by escheat, but by conquest, from the King of Great Britain and
his subjects; but they acquired nothing by that means from the citizens of the State Ä each individual
had, under this view of the case, a right to retain his private property, independent of the reservation in
the declaration of rights; but if there could be any doubt on that head, it is clearly explained and obviated
by the proviso in that instrument. Therefore, whether the State took by right of conquest or escheat, all
the interest which the U. K. had previous to the Declaration of Independence still remained with them,
on every principle of law and equity, because they are purchasers for a
valuable consideration, and being in possession as cestui que trust under the statute for transferring uses
into possession; and citizens of this State, at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and at the
time of making the declaration of rights, their interest is secured to them beyond the reach of any Act of
Assembly; neither can it be affected by any principle arising from the doctrine of escheats, supposing,
what I do not admit, that the State took by escheat."
MARSHALL v. LOVELESS, 1 N.C. 412 (1801), 2 S.A. 70
There was no way we could have had a perfected title to this land. Once we had won the Revolutionary
War we would had to have had an unconditional surrender by the king, this did not take place. Not what
66
took place at Yorktown, when we let the king off the hook. Barring this, the king would have to had
sold us this land, for us to have a perfected title, just as the Indians sold their land to the king, or the
eight Carolina Proprietors sold Carolina back to the king. The treaty of 1783 did not remove his claim
and original title, because he kept the minerals. This was no different than when king Charles II gave
Carolina by Charter to the lords that helped put him back in power; compare them and you will see the
end result is the same. The Charter to the lords is footnote #6, where eight proprietors were given title
to the land, but the king retained the money and sovereignty for his heirs. The king could not just give
up America to the colonialist, nor would he. He would violate his own law of Mortmain to put these
lands in dead hands, no longer to be able to be used by himself, or his heirs and successors. He would
also be guilty of harming his heirs and successors, by giving away that which he declared in the
following quotes, and there are similar quotes in the other Charters:
"SAVING always, the Faith, Allegiance, and Sovereign Dominion due to us, our heirs and Successors,
for the same; and Saving also, the right, title, and interest of all and every our Subjects of the English
Nation which are now Planted within the Limits bounds aforesaid, if any be;..." The Carolina Charter,
1663
"KNOW YE, that We, of our further grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, HAVE thought fit to
Erect the same Tract of Ground, Country, and Island into a Province, and, out of the fullness of our
Royal power and Prerogative, WE Do, for us, our heirs and Successors, Erect, Incorporate, and Ordain
the same into a province, and do call it the Province of CAROLINA, and so from henceforth will have it
called..." The Carolina Charter, 1663
The U.S. Constitution is a treaty between the states creating a corporation for the king. In the below
quote pay attention to the large "S" State and the small "s" state. The large "S" State is referring to the
corporate State and it's sovereignty over the small "s" state, because of the treaty.
Read the following quote:
Besides, the treaty of 1783 was declared by an Act of Assembly of this State passed in 1787, to be law in
this State, and this State by adopting the Constitution of the United States in 1789, declared the treaty
to be the supreme law of the land. The treaty now under consideration was made, on the part of the
United States, by a Congress composed of deputies from each state, to whom were delegated by the
articles of confederation, expressly, "the sole and exclusive right and power of entering into treaties and
alliances"; and being ratified and made by them, it became a complete national act, and the act and law
of every state.
If, however, a subsequent sanction of this State was at all necessary to make the treaty law here, it has
been had and repeated. By a statute passed in 1787, the treaty was declared to be law in this State, and
the courts of law and equity were enjoined to govern their decisions accordingly. And in 1789 was
adopted here the present Constitution of the United States, which declared that all treaties made, or
which should be made under the authority of the United States, should be the supreme law of the land;
and that the judges in every state should be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or laws of any
state to the contrary not withstanding. Surely, then, the treaty is now law in this State, and
the confiscation act, so far as the treaty interferes with it, is annulled."
"By an act of the Legislature of North Carolina, passed in April, 1777, it was, among other things,
enacted, "That all persons, being subjects of this State, and now living therein, or who shall hereafter
come to live therein, who have traded immediately to Great Britain or Ireland, within ten years last past,
in their own right, or acted as factors, storekeepers, or agents here, or in any of the United States of
America, for merchants residing in Great Britain or Ireland, shall take an oath of abjuration and
allegiance, or depart out of the State."
Treaties are the "Law of the Land" HAMILTON v. EATEN, 1 N.C. 641(1796), HAMILTON v. EATEN.
Ä 2 Mart., 1.
U.S. Circuit Court. (June Term, 1796.)
Your presence in the State makes you subject to its laws, read the following quote:
"The states are to be considered, with respect to each other, as independent sovereignties, possessing
67
powers completely adequate to their own government, in the exercise of which they are limited only by
the nature and objects of government, by their respective constitutions and by that of the United States.
Crimes and misdemeanors committed within the limits of each are punishable only by the jurisdiction of
that state where they arise; for the right of punishing, being founded upon the consent of the citizens,
express or implied, cannot be directed against those who never were citizens, and who likewise
committed the offense beyond the territorial limits of the state claiming jurisdiction. Our
Legislature may define and punish crimes committed within the State, whether by citizen or strangers;
because the are supposed to have consented to all laws made by the Legislature, and the latter, whether
their residence be temporary or permanent, do impliedly agree to yield obedience to all such laws as long
as they remain in the State;"
STATE v. KNIGHT, 1 N.C. 143 (1799), 2 S.A. 70
Do you understand now? The treaty, the corporate Charter, the North Carolina Constitution, by proxy
of the electorates, created residence in the large "S" State. Not by some further act you made. So how
can expatriation from the United States, remove your residence in The "State", which was created by
treaty, ratified by our Fore Fathers. As soon as the corporate Charter (treaty) was ratified we returned to
subjection to the king of England, through the legal residence created by the treaty. Remember in the
quote I gave earlier, by treaty we recanted our declared freedom, and returned to
the king his sovereignty and title. In the following quote you will see that the State supreme court sits by
being placed by the general assembly:
NC Supreme Court History Supreme Court of North Carolina A Brief History:
"The legal and historical origins of the Supreme Court of North Carolina lie in the State Constitution of
1776, which empowered the General Assembly to appoint; Judges of the Supreme Courts of Law and
Equity; and; Judges of Admiralty.....The first meeting of the Court took place on January 1, 1819. The
Court began holding two sittings, or ;
terms, ; a year, the first beginning on the second Monday in June and the second on the last Monday in
December. This schedule endured until the Constitution of 1868 prescribed the first Mondays in January
and July for the sittings.
Vacancies on the Court were filled temporarily by the Governor, with the assistance and advice of the
Council of State, until the end of the next session of the state General Assembly."
Council of State
What is the Council of State, and where did it originate?
III. "The one of which councils, to be called the council of state (and whose office shall chiefly be
assisting, with their care, advice, and circumspection, to the said governor) shall be chosen, nominated,
placed, and displaced, from time to time, by us the said treasurer, council and company, and our
successors: which council of state shall consist, for the present only of these persons, as are here
inserted,..."
IV. "The other council, more generally to be called by the governor, once yearly, and no oftener, but for
very extraordinary and important occasions, shall consist for the present, of the said council of state, and
of two burgesses out of every town, hundred, or other particular plantation, to be respectively chosen by
the inhabitants: which council shall be called The General Assembly, wherein (as also in the said council
of state) all matters shall be decided, determined, and ordered by the greater part of the voices then
present; reserving to the governor always a negative voice. And this general assembly shall have free
power, to treat, consult, and conclude, as well of all emergent occasions concerning the public weal of
the said colony and every part thereof, as also to make, ordain, and enact such general laws and orders,
for the behoof of the said colony, and the good government thereof, as shall, from time to
time, appear necessary or requisite;..." An Ordinance and Constitution of the Virginia Company in
England. Footnote
#4
The job of the 1st Council of State was to make sure the governor followed the king's wishes. The 2nd
was the general assembly, the laws they passed had to conform to the king's law.
68
Read the following quote:
V. Whereas in all other things, we require the said general assembly, as also the said council of state, to
imitate and follow the policy of the form of government, laws, customs, and manner of trial, and other
administration of justice, used in the realm of England, as near as may be even as ourselves, by his
majesty's letters patent, are required.
VI. Provided, that no law or ordinance, made in the said general assembly, shall be or continue in force
or validity, unless the same shall be solemnly ratified and confirmed, in a general quarter court of the
said company here in England, and so ratified, be returned to them under our seal; it being our intent to
afford the like measure also unto the said colony, that after the government of the said colony shall once
have been well framed, and settled accordingly, which is to be done by us, as by authority derived from
his majesty, and the same shall have been so by us declared, no orders of court afterwards, shall bind the
said colony, unless they be ratified in like manner in the general assemblies.
In witness whereof we have hereunto set our common seal the 24th of July, 1621. . . .An Ordinance and
Constitution of the Virginia Company in England.
The Council of State still exists to day, although it has been modified several times. The first major
change came in the 1776, North Carolina Constitution, read the below quotes:
16. "That the senate and house of commons, jointly, at their first meeting, after each annual election,
shall, by ballot, elect seven persons to be a council of state for one year; who shall advise the governor
in the execution of his office; and that four members shall be a quorum; their advice and proceedings
shall be entered in a journal, to be kept for that
purpose only, and signed by the members present; to any part of which any member present may enter
his dissent. And such journal shall be laid before the general assembly when called for by them.
19. "The governor, for the time being, shall have power to draw for and apply such sums of money as
shall be voted by the general assembly, for the contingencies of government, and be accountable to them
for the same. He also may, by and with the advice of the council of state, lay embargoes, or prohibit the
exportation of any commodity, for any term not exceeding thirty days, at any one time in the recess of
the general assembly; and shall have the power of granting pardons and reprieves, except where the
prosecution shall be carried on by the general assembly, or the law shall otherwise direct; in which case,
he may, in the recess, grant a reprieve until the next sitting of the general assembly; and
he may exercise all the other executive powers of government, limited and restrained, as by this
constitution is mentioned, and according to the laws of the State. And, on his death, inability, or absence
from the State, the speaker of the senate, for the time being, and in case of his death, inability, or
absence from the State, the speaker of the house of commons, shall exercise the powers of government,
after such death, or during such absence or inability of the governor, or speaker of the senate, or until a
new nomination is made by the general assembly.
20. "That, in every case, where any officer, the right of whose appointment is, by this constitution,
vested in the general assembly, shall, during their recess, die, or his office by other means become
vacant, the governor shall have power, with the advice of the council of State, to fill up such vacancy, by
granting a temporary commission, which shall expire at the end of the next session of the general
assembly.
Also take notice who was not allowed to serve as Council of State:
26. "That no treasurer shall have a seat, either in the senate, house of commons, or council of state,
during his continuance in that office, or before he shall have finally settled his accounts with the public,
for all the moneys which may be in his hands, at the expiration of his office, belonging to the State, and
hath paid the same into the hands of the succeeding treasurer."
27. "That no officer in the regular army or navy, in the service and pay of the United States, of this State
or any other State, nor any contractor or agent for supplying such army or navy with clothing or
provisions, shall have a seat either in the senate, house of commons, or council of state, or be eligible
thereto; and any member of the senate, house of commons, or council of state, being appointed to,and
accepting of such office, shall thereby vacate his seat."
69
28. "That no member of the council of state shall have a seat, either in the senate or house of commons."
30. "That no secretary of this State, attorney-general, or clerk of any court of record, shall have a seat in
the senate, house of commons, or council of state.
The king continued to rule through the Council of State until several things were in place, his bank, his
laws and tradition. The king succeeded by the acceptance of the American people that they were free,
along with the whole of our history not being taught in our schools. The next change to the Council of
State came at the conquest of this country, I referred to this in part 1, and in A Country Defeated In
Victory.
Read this quote from the 1868 North Carolina constitution, Article 3, sec 14:
SEC. 14. "The Secretary of State, Auditor, Treasurer, Superintendent of Public Works, and
Superintendent of Public Instruction, shall constitute ex officio, the Council of State, who shall advise
the Governor in the execution of his office, and three of whom shall constitute a quorum; their advice
and proceedings in this capacity shall be entered in a Journal, to be kept for this purpose exclusively, and
signed by the members present, from any part of which any member may enter his dissent; and such
journal shall be placed before the General Assembly when called for by either House. The Attorney
General shall be, ex offici, the legal adviser of the Executive Department.
After the Civil War, the conquest of America, you see those that were allowed to be Council of State,
were elected officials. Under the 1776 North Carolina Constitution, it wasunlawful for these elected
officials to be Council of State.
Why? Because, the king could not trust the common man to obey him, now that they thought they were
free. After the Civil War the Council of State was no longer needed to fulfill the public policy of the
king, the Council of State still exists today, but in a reduced capacity as far as the king goes. Now he
had the 14th Amendment, his lawyers in the government, his bankers in control of the governments
money, and above all greed that causes most in office to continue the status quo.
The Federal Reserve, Taxes and Tax Court
What I will show you next will shock you, that taxes paid in this country were under treaty to the king
of England. How about if I told you that the law that created our taxes and this countries tax court go
back in history to William the Conqueror. And to further help you understand the below definitions,
exchequer is the British branch of the Federal Reserve.
Exchequer: "The English department of revenue. A very ancient court of record, set up by William the
Conqueror, as a part of the aula regia, and intended principally to order the revenues of the crown, and
to recover the king's debts and duties. It was called exchequer, "scaccharium," from the checked cloth,
resembling a chessboard, which covers the table." Ballentine's Law Dictionary
Exchequer: "That department of the English government which has charge of the collection of the
national revenue; the treasury department." Black's Law Dictionary 4th ed.
Exchequer: "In English Law. A department of the government which has the management of the
collection of the king's revenue." Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1914 ed.
Court of Exchequer: "56.The court of exchequer is inferior in rank not only to the court of king's bench,
but to the common pleas also: but I have chosen to consider it in this order, on account of its double
capacity, as a court of law and a court of equity [44] also. It is a very ancient court of record, set up by
William the Conqueror, as a part of the aula regia, through regulated and reduced to its present order by
King Edward I; and intended principally to order the revenues of the crown, and to recover the king's
debts and duties. It is called the exchequer, scaccharium, from the chequed cloth, resembling a chessboard,
which covers the table there; and on which, when certain of the king's accounts are made up, the
sums are marked and scored with counters. It consists of two divisions; the receipt of the
exchequer, which manages to royal revenue, and with which these Commentaries have no concern; and
the court or judicial part of it, which is again subdivided into a court of equity, and a court of common
law."
70
Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1554
Court of Exchequer: "An English superior court with jurisdiction of matter of law and matters involving
government
revenue." Ballentine's Law Dictionary
Court of Exchequer: "A court for the correction and prevention of errors of law in the three superior
common-law
courts of the kingdom.
A court of exchequer chamber was first erected by statute 31 Edw. III. C. 12, to determine causes upon
writs of error
from the common-law side of the exchequer court. It consisted of the chancellor, treasurer, and the
"justices and other
sage persons as to them seemeth." The judges were merely assistants. A second court of exchequer
chamber was
instituted by statute 27 Eliz. C. 8, consisting of the justices of the common pleas and the exchequer, or
any six of them,
which had jurisdiction in error of cases in the king's bench. In exchequer chamber substituted in their
place as an
intermediate court of appeal between the three common-law courts and Parliament. It consisted of the
judges of the two
courts which had not rendered the judgement in the court below. It is now merged in the High Court of
Justice."
Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1914 ed.
It gets worse, are you just a little ticked off, or maybe you are starting to question what you have been
taught all these
years? It's time to wake up America!
If you'll look at the Judiciary Act of 1789 (I know most won't take time to read it), you'll see that all
district courts are
admiralty courts. This is the king's court of commerce, in which he is the plaintiff, recovering damages
done against
him, or what belongs to him.
The equity court of the exchequer: "57. The court of equity is held in the exchequer chamber before the
lord treasurer,
the chancellor of the exchequer, the chief baron, and three puisne' ones. These Mr. Selden conjectures to
have been
anciently made out of such as were barons of the kingdom, or parliamentary barons; and thence to have
derived their
name: which conjecture receives great strength form Bracton's explanation of magna carta, c.14, which
directs that the
earls and barons be amerced by their peers; that is, says he, by the barons of the exchequer. The primary
and original
business of this court is to call the king's debtors to account, by bill filed by the attorney general; and to
recover any
lands, tenements, or hereitaments, any goods, chattels, or other profits or benefits, belonging to the
crown. So that by
their original constitution the jurisdiction of the courts of common pleas, king's bench, and exchequer,
was entirely
separate and distinct; the common pleas being intended to decide all controversies between subject and
subject; the
king's bench to correct all crimes and misdemeanors that amount to a breach of the peace, the king being
then the
71
plaintiff, as such offenses are in open derogation of the jura regalia (regal rights) of his crown; and the
exchequer to
adjust [45] and recover his revenue, wherein the king also is plaintiff, as the withholding and
nonpayment thereof is an
injury to his jura fiscalia (fisical rights). But, as by a fiction almost all sorts of civil actions are now
allowed to be
brought in the king's bench, in like manner by another fiction all kinds of personal suits may be
prosecuted in the court
of exchequer. For as all the officers and ministers of this court have, like those of other superior courts,
the privilege of
suing and being sued only in their own court; so exchequer, are privileged to sue and implead all manner
of persons in
the same court of equity that they themselves are called into. They have likewise privilege to sue and
implead one
another, or any stranger, in the same kind of common-law actions (where the personalty only is
concerned) as are
prosecuted in the court of common pleas."
Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1554
The common-law court of the exchequer: "58. This gives original to the common-law part of their
jurisdiction, which
was established merely for the benefit of the king's accountants, and is exercised by the barons only of
the exchequer,
and not the treasurer or chancellor. The writ upon which the plaintiff suggests that he is the king's farmer
or debtor, and
that the defendant hath done him the injury or damage complained of; quo minus sufficient exist, by
which he is the
less able, to pay the king his debt or rent. And these suits are expressly directed, by what is called the
statute of
Rutland, to be confined to such matters only as specially concern the king or his ministers of the
exchequer. And by the
articuli super cartas it is enacted that no common pleas be thenceforth holden in the exchequer, contrary
to the form of
the great charter. But not, by the suggestion of privilege, any person may be admitted to sue in the
exchequer as well as
the king's accountant. The surmise of being debtor to the king is therefore become matter of form and
mere words of
course, and the court is open to allthe nation equally. The same holds with regard to the equity side of
the court: for
there any person may file [46] a bill against another upon a bare suggestion that he is the king's
accountant; but whether
he is so or not is never controverted. In this court, on the nonpayment of titles; in which case the
surmise of being the
king's debtor is no fiction, they being bound to pay him their first-fruits, and annual tenths. But the
chancery has of late
years obtained a large share in this business."
Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1555
Definition of a legal fiction: For a discussion of fictions in law, see chapter II of Maine's Ancient Law,
and Pollock's
note D in his edition of the Ancient Law. Blackstone gives illustrations of legal fictions on pages 43, 45,
153, 203 of
72
this book. Mr Justice Curtis (Jurisdiction of United States Courts, 2d ed., 148) gives the following
instance of a fiction
in our practice:
"A suit by or against a corporation in its corporate name may be presumed to be a suit by or against
citizens of the state
which created the corporate body, and no averment or denial to the contrary is admissible for the
purpose of
withdrawing the suit from the jurisdiction of a court of the United States.
There is the Roman fiction: The court first decides the law, presumes all the members are citizens of the
state which
created the corporation, and then says, `you shall not traverse that presumption'; and that is the law now.
(Authors noteby
your residence you are incorporated) Under it, the courts of the United States constantly entertain suits
by or against
corporations. (Muller v. Dows, 94 U. S. 444, 24 L. Ed. 207.) It has been so frequently settled, that there
is not the
slightest reason to suppose that it will ever be departed from by the court. It has been repeated over and
over again in
subsequent decisions; and the supreme court seem entirely satisfied that it is the right ground to stand
upon; and, as I
am now going to state to you, they have applied it in some cases which go beyond, much beyond, these
decisions to
which I have referred.
So that when a suit is to be brought in a court of the United States by or against a corporation, by
reason of the
character of the parties, you have only to say that this corporation (after naming it correctly) was
created by a law of the
state; and that is exactly the same in its consequences as if you could allege, and did allege, that the
corporation was a
citizen of that state. According to the present decisions, it is not necessary you should say that the
members of that
corporation are citizens of Massachusetts. They have passed beyond that. You have only to say that the
corporation was
created by a law of the state of Massachusetts, and has its principal place of business in that state; and
that makes it, for
the purposes of jurisdiction, the same as if it were a citizen of that state" See Pound, Readings in Roman
Law, 95n.
Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1553
Combine this with what I said earlier concerning power of the treaty and it's creation of the corporate
State, and you
now know why you are not allowed to challenge residence or subjection in the State Courts. And
because of the treaty,
residence in the State is synonymous with residence in the district. I know this puts a sour taste in your
mouth, because
it does mine, but that is the condition we find ourselves in. The only way I see to change it, is to change
the treaty and
reinforce the original Declaration of Independence, but this would meet severe objection on the part of
the international
Bankers, and or course the king's heirs in England. And most Americans, even if they were aware of this
information,
73
would have no stomach for the turmoil this would cause.
Still a little fuzzy on what has taken place, the word Exchequer is still used today? In Britain the
Exchequer is the
Federal Reserve, the same as our Federal Reserve. They just changed the name here as they have done
many things to
cloud what is taking place, hoping no one would catch on. Who wrote the Federal Reserve Act, and put
it in place in
this country? Bankers from the Bank of England with their counter part in New York!
Congressman McFadden: "I hope that is the case, but I may say to the gentleman that during the
sessions of this
Economic Conference in London there is another meeting taking place in London. We were advised by
reports from
London last Sunday of the arrival of George L.Harrison, Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New
York, and we
were advised that accompanying him was Mr. Crane, the Deputy Governor, and James P. Warburg, of
the Kuhn-Loeb
banking family, of New York and Hamburg, Germany, and also Mr. O. M. W. Sprague, recently in the
pay of Great
Britain as chief economic and financial adviser of Mr. Norman, Governor of the Bank Of England, and
now supposed
to represent our Treasury. These men landed in England and rushed to the Bank of England for a private
conference,
taking their luggage with them, before even going to their hotel. We know this conference has been
taking place for the
past 3 days behind closed doors in the Bank of England with these gentlemen meeting with heads of the
Bank of
England and the Bank for International Settlements, of Basel, Switzerland, and the head of the Bank
France, Mr. Maret.
They are discussing war debts; they are discussing stabilization of exchanges and the Federal Reserve
System,I may
say to the Members of the House.
The Federal reserve System, headed by George L. Harrison, is our premier, who is dealing with debts
behind the closed
doors of the Bank of England; and the United States Treasury is there, represented by O. M. W.
Sprague, who until the
last 10 days was the representative of the Bank of England, and by Mr. James P. Warburg, who is the
son of the
principal author of the Federal Reserve Act. Many things are being settled behind the closed doors of the
Bank of
England by this group. No doubt this group were pleased to hear that yesterday the Congress passed
amendments to the
Federal Reserve Act and that the President signed the bill which turns over to the Federal Reserve
System the complete
total financial resources of money and credit in the United States. Apparently the domination and control
of the
international banking group is being trengthened.... Congressional Record, June 14, 1934
What else does the Exchequer do? The government(Congress) puts up bonds (bills of credit) on the
international
market, that the Federal Reserve (Exchequer) prints fiat money, for which the government (Congress) is
the guarantor
74
for, read the following quote:
Exchequer Bills: Bills of credit issued by authority of parliament.
They constitute the medium of transaction of business between the bank of England and the
government. The
exchequer bills contain a guarantee from government which secures the holders against loss by
fluctuation. Bouvier's
Law Dictionary 1914 ed.
Also re-read "A Country Defeated In Victory". Who do you think the national debt is owed to? If that's
not bad enough
the bond indebtedness allowed the king to foreclose on his colony when it was time for the one World
government, the
king/bankers caused us to reorganize under bankruptcy. The Bank of England allowed the United States
to use you and
I (our labor)for collateral and all the property in America, read the following quote:
Congressman Lemke: "....This nation is bankrupt; every State in this Union is bankrupt; the people of
the United States,
as a whole, are bankrupt. The public and private debts of this Nation, which are evidenced by bonds,
mortgages, notes,
or other written instruments about to about $250,000,000,000, and it is estimated that there is about
$50,000,000,000 of
which there is no record, making in all about $300,000,000,000 of public and private debts. The total
physical cash
value of all the property in the United States is now estimated at about $70,000,000,000. That is more
than it would
bring if sold at public auction. In this we do not include debts or the evidence of debts, such as bonds,
mortgages, and
so fourth. These are not physical property. They will have to be paid out of the physical property. How
are we going to
pay $300,000,000,000 with only $70,000,000,000?" Congressional Record, March 3, 1934, footnote
#10
This debt was more than could be paid as of 1934, this caused the declared bankruptcy by President
Roosevelt. Now
the national debt is over 12,000,000,000,000. The government only tells you about 5,000,000,000,000,
they don't tell
you about the corporate debt, which America is also guarantor for. Add to that the personal debt; you
know credit cards
and home loans, and it approaches 20,000,000,000,000, that's trillion for those of you that miss read the
number of
zero's. Mix this with a super inflated stock market and a huge trade deficit, and that is what brings you
to understand
my subtitle for this paper. BEND OVER AMERICA. What could possibly be the purpose of the
international bankers
allowing our nation to over extend so badly and not cut us off? When back in 1934 they could have
legally seized the
whole country. We are being used for the purpose of the international bankers which is loaning money to
third world
countries, to enslave them as we are, to colonize the world for Britain, and to use our military machine
to control unruly
countries and to collect the king's debt. There will soon be a United Nations personal income tax for the
whole world.
75
The end purpose of the international bankers, is a one world government, with England as the center of
government and
the international bankers calling the shots.
Constitution & Law
"The ultimate authority...resides in the people alone."
-James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.
"No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent." -Abraham Lincoln
"The presumption is simply that the weaker party consent to be slaves. Such is the
presumption on which alone our government relies to justify the power it maintains over
it's unwilling subjects. The real motives and spirit which lie at the foundation of all
legislation are the same today as they always have been -- to keep one class of men in
subordination and servitude to another." --Lysander Spooner
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society,
they create for themselves, in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a
moral code that glorifies it." -- Fred Bastiat - Around 1850
"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the State, they forget that the State exists at
the expense of everyone" -- Fred Bastiat - Around 1850
"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the
fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place."
-Frederic Bastiat
"See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons
to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what
the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime." -Frederic Bastiat
The People over their servants ------ Principle over the agent!!
“In this state as in all republics, it is not the Legislature, however translucent it’s powers, who are
supreme- but the
people- and to suppose that they may violate the fundamental law, is, as has been most eloquently
expressed, to affirm
that the deputy is greater than his principle; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives
of the people
are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of delegated power may do not only
what their powers
do not authorize, but what they forbid.” Waring v. Mayor of Savannah, 60 Georgia page 93
“In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards
and councils and other public agencies in this state exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It
is the intent
of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.
The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in
delegating
authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and
what is not good
for them to know. The people insist on remaining
informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have create.” -------
California Government Code Section 54950.
supreme Court in the county!! --------Justices’ Courts
“Upon a change from Territorial to State government the seals in use by the Supreme Court
and the Territorial District courts in and for the several counties respectively, shall pass to and become
until otherwise
provided by law, the seals respectively, of the Supreme Court and of
the District Courts of the State in such counties”. --------- Constitution of Montana, 1889,
76
Article XX, section 6
1994 MCA Special Session Edition Jurisdiction Over Appeals From Justices’ Courts : The Supreme
Court does not
have appellate jurisdiction to review the judgements or orders of the Justices’ Courts. Adair v. Lake
County Justice
Court, 213 M 466, 692 P2d 13, 41 St. Rep. 2241 (1984); State ex rel. Estes v. Justice Court, 129 M
136, 284 P2d 249
(1955).
1994 MCA Special Session Edition Section 5. Self Government Charters. (1) The Legislature shall
provide
procedures permitting a local government unit or combination of units to frame, adopt, amend, revise,
or abandon a
self-government charter with the approval of a majority of those voting on the question. The procedures
shall not
require approval of a charter by a legislative body.
(2) If the legislature does not provide such procedures by July 1, 1975, they may be established
by election either:
(a) Initiated by petition in the local government unit or combination of units; or
(b) Called by the governing body of the local government unit or combination of units.
(3) Charter provisions establishing executive, legislative, and administrative structure and
organization are superior to statutory provisions.
1994 MCA Special Session Edition Art. XI, Sec. 5, Mont. Const.—Official Comment
New provision directing legislature to pass laws concerning procedures for local voters to design their
own forms of government (self-government charters). The charter provisions concerning structure of
local governments would take precedence over general laws on such matters.
“The Legislative Assembly shall not pass local or special laws in any of the following enumerated cases,
that is to say: regulating county or township affairs; regulating the practice in Courts of Justice;
regulating the jurisdiction and duties of Justices of the peace, police magistrates or constables; changing
the rules of evidence in any trial or inquiry; providing for changes of venue in civil or criminal cases; for
limitation of civil actions; summoning or empaneling grand or petit juries; for the punishment of crimes;
for the assess-ment or collection of taxes; changing the law of descent; creating offices, or prescribing
the powers or duties of officers in counties, cities, township or school districts;” Montana Constitution,
Article 5, sec.26 Who is bound by the Constitution and laws of the legislature?
2. This constitution, and the laws of the united states which shall be made in pursuance thereof, , and all
treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law
of the land : and the judges, in every state, shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of
any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
3. The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures,
and all executive and judicial officers, both of the united states and of the several states shall be bound,
by oath or affirmation to support this constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a
qualification to any office or public trust under the united states. --U.S. Constitution Article VI Section 2
& 3 "When a change of government takes place, from a monarchial to a republican government,
the old form is dissolved. Those who lived under it, and did not choose to become members of the
new, had a right to refuse their allegiance to it, and to retire elsewhere. By being a part of the
society subject to the old government, they had not entered into any engagement to become subject
to any new form the majority might think proper to adopt. That the majority shall prevail is a rule
posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind in
their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by
nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent." CRUDEN v.
NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70. Emphasis added.
77
“Time does not confirm a void act.” California Civil Code section 3539
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." --
Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US 137, 174, 176 (1803)
"All that government does and provides legitimately is in pursuit of it's duty to
provide protection for private rights (Wynhammer v. People, 13 NY 378), which
duty is a debt owed to it's creator, WE THE PEOPLE and the private unenfranchised individual; which
debt and duty is never extinguished nor discharged, and is perpetual. No matter what the
government/state provides for us in manner of convenience and safety, the unenfranchised individual
owes nothing to the government." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43
"Government does not exist, in a personal sense, for the purpose of acquiring, protecting and enjoying
property. It exists primarily for the protection of the people in their individual rights, and holds property
not primarily for the enjoyment of property accumulations, but as an incident to the purpose for which
it exists ---that of serving the people and protecting them in their rights.
Curley vs U.S., 130 F. 1, 8, 64 C.C.A. 369 "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it
imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as
inoperative as though it had never been passed." -- Norton vs. Shelby County, 118, US 425 p. 442 "The
general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no
law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of
it's enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an
unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." -- 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec. 177, late 2d, Sec 256
"Our freedom of speech, under the First Amendment, also protects a person's right to have access to
information, i.e. the right to hear and read. (See: Va. State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Va. Citizen's Consumers
Council, Inc., (1976) 425 U.S. 748 "A free press stands as one of the greater interpreters between the
government and the people. To allow it to be fettered is to fetter ourselves." Grosjean v. American Press
Co. 56 S Ct. 444 (1936) "No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on
any other branch of government, which is free from the resraints of the Constitution." Supreme Court in
Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) "Invito beneficium non datur- No one is obliged to accept a benefit
against his consent." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p, 2140).[No officer can compel any
Good and Lawful Man to get a license, benefit, or privilege in
commerce.]
Common Law
"The Constitution is to be interpreted according to Common Law Rules." -- Schick vs. U.S., 195 US 65,
24 Sup. Ct. 826, 49 L. Ed. 99 "...a Statute will not be construed so as to overrule a principle of
established Common Law, unless it is made plain by the act that such a change in the
established law is intended." -- Starkey Construction Inc. vs. Elcon, Inc., 248 Ark 958, 978A,
457 SW 2nd 509, 7 U.C.C.RS 923 "A statute should be construed in harmony with the Common Law
unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law." --United Bank vs. Mesa
Nelson Co., 121 Ariz 438, 590 P2d 1384, 25 U.C.C.RS 1113 "The Constitution is to be construed with
respect to the law existing at the time of it's adoption and as securing to the individual citizen the rights
inherited by him under English Law, and not with reference to new guarantees." --Mattox vs. U.S.,
156 US 237, 15 Sup Ct. 337, 39 L. Ed. 409 "It [U.S. Constitution] must be interpreted in the light of
Common Law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the
Constitution. Th language of the Constitution could not be understood without reference to the
Common Law." -- U.S. vs. Wong Kim, Ark, 169 US 649, 18 S. Ct. 456 Sovereignty (State and
Individual) "For when the [American] revolution took place, the people of each state became themselves
sovereign; and in that character hold the absolute right to all their navigable waters, and the soils under
them, for their own common use, subject only to the rights since surrendured by the Constitution to the
general government." -- Martin vs. Waddell, 41 US (16 Pet) 367, 410 (1842)
78
"People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative." --
Lansing vs. Smith, 21 D.89 "Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and
source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government,
sovereignty itself, remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And
the law is the definition and limitation of power." -- Justice Matthews in Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 US
356 "There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the [federal] United
States... In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which
they [the sovereign people] have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld." --
Supreme Court Justice Field "Land Patents are issues (and theoretically passed) between Sovereigns.
Deeds are executed by 'persons' and private corporations without these sovereign
powers." -- Leading Fighter vs. County of Gregory, 230 N.W.2d. 114.116 (1975)
"As long as the Constitution endured, this supreme Court must exist with it,
deciding in peaceful forms of judicial proceedings the angry and irritating controversies between
sovereignties." -- Judge Taney
Point: If the "Individual People" were not the true Sovereigns, how could he say this? (Above) This is a
"Proof" that the Individual People are the TRUE SOVEREIGNS above government!!
Person vs. People (Artificial Persons vs. Natural Persons)
"The word "person" in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which
normally includes in it's scope a variety of entities other than human beings.
See e.g. 1 U.S.C. ss 1. Church of Scientology v. U.S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F 2d 417, 425.
Citizenship (State v. Federal or U.S.)
"While the 14th Amendment does not create a national citizenship, it has the effect of making that
citizenship 'paramount and dominant' " -- Supreme Court, Colgate vs. Harvey 296 U.S. 404, 427;
80 L. Ed. 299 1935; See page 309 Lawyers Ed.
United States of America vs. UNITED STATES INC.
"Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation and take on
the characteristics of a mere private citizen where private corporate commercail
paper [federal reserve notes] and securities [checks] is concerned..." -- Clearfield
Trust Company v. United States, 318 U.S. 363-371, 1942
"When governments enter the world of commerce, they are subject to the same
burdens as any private firm or corporation" -- U.S. v. Burr, 309 U.S. 242
See: 22 U.S.C.A.286e, Bank of U.S. vs. Planters Bank of Georgia, 6L, Ed. (9 Wheat) 244;
22 U.S.C.A. 286 et seq., C.R.S. 11-60-103
Licenses (Business)
"No state shall convert a liberty into a privelege; license it, and attach a fee to
it." Murdoch v. Penn., 318 U.S. 105
"Right to Travel" Issue
"Original 13th Amendment (Titles of Nobility)" Issue
(Very Important!!)
"If any Citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any
title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and
retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any
emperor, King prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a Citizen of
the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit
under them, or either of them."-- ORIGINAL 13th AMENDMENT RATIFIED 1820
"14th Amendment" Issue
"While the Union survived the Civil War, the Constitution did not...in it's place
arose a more promising basis for justice and equality, the 14th Amendment." --
Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall , May 6th 1987
"Income Tax-16th Amendment" Issue
79
The I.R.S. was created in Delaware, July 11, 1933. Entered into a service agreement with the
United States Treasury Dept. and Agency for International Development (A.I.D.) (Treasury
Delegation Order No. 91 & 22 U.S.C.A. 611(c)(iii)
The A.I.D. is a paramilitary operation focusing on creating a dictatorship over finance in the
United States. (1985 Edition Dept. Army Field Manual, FM 41-10, pg 3-8; Senate Report 93-549
pg.186.
The I.R.S. is a member of the International Police Crime Organization supplying information to
150 foreign powers -- 22 U.S.C.A. 263(a); 22 U.S.C.A. 285(G) & 287; 22 U.S.C.A. 6103 (k)(4);
United States Government Manual 1990-91 Pg. 385
I.R.S. Agents are trained under the Division of Human Services and the I.R.S. Commissioner
under the Office of Personal Management. The Office of Personal Management is under the
Director of the Secretary General of the United Nations -- 1976 Edition of 22 U.S.C.A. 287; 1979
Supp III pg. 474; Executive Order No. 10422; Treasury Delegation Order 92
Sec.17 Title 15--Commerce and Trade Page 148
Sec. 17 Antitrust laws not applicable to labor organizations.
"The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce.
Nothing contained in the anti-trust law shall be construed to forbid the existence
and operation of labor, agricultural, or horticultural organizations, instituted for
the purposes of mutual help, and not having capital stock or conducted for profit,
or to forbid or restrain individual members of such organizations from lawfully
carrying out the legitimate objects thereof; nor shall such organizations, or the
members thereof, be held or construed to be illegal combinations or conspiracies
in restraint of trade, under the antitrust laws.
(Oct. 15, 1914 ch.323, sec. 6, 38 Stat. 731.)
"W-4 is only for government employees" -- Title 5 U.S.C. 2105
"Income excludes wages, salaries, and tips" -- Graves vs. People of N.Y.
exrel O'Keefe 59 S.Ct 595 (1939)
"AGENTS...Our tax system is based on voluntary assessment and voluntary
compliance....the material contained in this handbook is confidential in character.
It must not under any circumstances be made available to persons outside the
service." -- Mr. Mortimer Caplan, IRS Commissioner
"Our system of taxation is based on voluntary assessment and payment, not
upon distraint. [Distraint means force] -- Flora vs. U.S., 362 US 145
""[The I.R.S.] taxes only income 'derived' from many different [U.S.] sources;
One does not 'derive income' by rendering services and charging for them." --
Edwards vs. Keith, 231 Fed. Rep. 113
"No inference, implication or presumption of legislative construction shall be
drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or
provision or portion of this title {26}, nor shall any table of contents, table of
cross-references, or similar outline, analysis or descriptive matter relating to the
contents of this Title be given any legal effect." -- IRC Section 7806(b)
"...an estate or trust, as the case may be, the income of which comes from
sources without [federal] the United States which is not effectively connected
with the [performance of the functions of a public office] within the [federal]
United States, is not includeable in gross income under subtitle A." -- IRC Section
7701(a)(31)
"Anyone may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not
bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury."
-Judge Learned Hand, Helvering v. Gregory (1934)
80
Social Security Number
"There is no Social Security law requiring that one have a number, but the IRS
Tax Code, section 6109 subsection A, stipulates that taxpayers shall utilize their
Social Security numbers when filing tax returns. Therefore, if one pays taxes, one
must have a Social Security number." -- Letter from Lloyd Bentson, U.S. Senator from Texas
"It shall be unlawful for any federal, state or government agency [including
businesses within the federal United States] to deny to any individual any right,
benefit or privilege provided by law because of such individual's refusal to disclose
his/her Social Security Account Number."
"Actual damages sustained by the individual as a result of the refusal or failure,
but in no case shall a person entitled to recovery receive less than the sum of
$1,000.00 the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney fees
determined by the court." -- Privacy Act of 1974
"The purpose of this [Privacy] Act is to provide certain safeguards for an
individual against invasion of personal privacy by requiring Federal agencies...
to permit an individual to determine what records pertaining to him are collected,
maintained, used, or disseminated by such agencies." -- Public Law 93-579
Right to Keep and Bear Arms
"...while the legislature has the power in the most comprehensive manner to regulate
the carrying and use of firearms, that bodyhas no power to constitute it a crime
for a person, alien or citizen, to possess a revolver for the legitimate defense of
himself and his property. The provisions in the Constitution granting the right to
all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the
legislature to enact any law to the contrary."
-PEOPLE V. ZERILLO, 219 MICH 635
"The police power of the state to preserve public safety and peace and to regulate
the bearing of arms cannot fairly be restricted to the mere establishment of
conditions under which all sorts of weapons may be privately possessed,
but it may account of the character and ordinary use of weapons and interdict
those whose customary employment by individuals is to violate the law. The
power is, of course subject to the limitation that its exercise be reasonable and it
cannot constitutionally result in the prohibition of the possession of those
arms which, by the common opinion and usage of law-abiding people, are
proper and legitimate to be kept upon private premises for the protection
of person and property."
-PEOPLE V. BROWN, 253 MICH 537
"The right of the people peacefully to assemble for lawful purposes existed long
before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is and always
has been one of the attributes of a free government. It 'derives its source,' to use the
language of Chief Justice Marshall, in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 211, 'from those
laws whose authority is acknowledged by civilized man throughout the world.'
It is found wherever civilization exists. It was not, therefore, a right granted to the
people by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that
instrument for its existence. The second Amendment declares that it shall not be
infringed ; but this, as has been seen, means no more than it shall not be infringed by
Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the
powers of the National Government..."
81
-UNITED STATES V. CRUIKSHANK;, 92 US 542 (1875)
"The rifle of all descriptions, the shot gun, the musket and repeater are such arms; and
that under the Constitution the right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed or
forbidden by the legislature."
-ANDREWS V. STATE; 50 TENN. 165, 179, 8 AM. REP. 8, 14 (TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT,
1871)
"...we incline to the opinion that the Legislature cannot inhibit the citizen from bearing
arms openly, because it authorizes him to bear them for the purposes of defending
himself and the State, and it is only when carried openly, that they can be efficiently
used for defence."
-STATE V. REID, 1 ALA. 612, 619, 35 AM. DEC. 47 (1840)
"...the right to keep arms necessarily involves the right to purchase them, to keep them
in a state of efficiency for use, and to purchase and provide ammunition suitable for
such arms, and to keep them in repair."
-ANDRES V. STATE, 50 TENN. (3 Heisk) 165, 178; (1871)
"The practical and safe construction is that which must have been in the minds of those
who framed our organic law. The intention was to embrace the 'arms', an
acquaintance with whose use was necessary for their protection against the usurpation
of illegal power - such as rifles, muskets, shotguns, swords and pistols. "These are but
little used now in war; still they are such weapons that they or their like can still
be considered as 'arms', which the people have a right to bear."
-STATE V. KERNER, 181 NC 574, 107 SE 222, 224-25 (NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT,
1921.
"If the text and purpose of the Constitutional guarantee relied exclusively on the
preference for a militia 'for defense of the State' then the terms 'arms' most likely
would include only the modern day equivalents of the weapons used by the Colonial
Militia Men."
-STATE V. KESSLER, 289 OR. 359, 369, 614 P.2D 94, 99 (OREGON SUPREME COURT, 1980),
"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm...is an unwarranted restriction
upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men
sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be
prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of
constitutional privilege."
-WILSON V. STATE, 33 ARK 557, AT 560, 34 AM. REP.. 52, AT 54. (1878).
" 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the
whole people, old and young, men, women, and boys, and not militia only, to keep
and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall
not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all for the
important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so
vitally necessary to the security of a free state. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal,
is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right."
-NUNN V. STATE, 1 GA. (1 KEL.) 243, AT 251 (1846)
"[T]he right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the second amendment to the
federal constitution is not carried over into the fourteenth amendment so as to be applicable to the
states."
STATE V. AMOS, 343 SO. 2D 166, 168 (LA. 1977).
Illegal Search, Seizure, and Unlawful Police Actions
Commenting upon police powers, he said "Yet if the individual is no longer to be
sovereign, if the police can pick him up whenever they do not like the cut of his
jib, if they can "sieze" and "search" him in their discretion, we enter a new regime."
82
Justice Douglas in Terry v. State of Ohio, 88 S.Ct. 1868 (1889)
"As in the case of illegal arrests, the officer is bound to know these fundamental
rights and priveliges, and must keep within the law at his peril."
Thiede v. Town of Scandia Valley, 217 Minn. 218, 231 14N.W. (2d) 400 (1944)
"No suit can be sustained against a state; but an unconstitutional law affords no justification to a state
officer for an act injurious to an individual. The officer is not the state, and can set up no exemption
under it, unless he act within the authority of law." Astrom v Hammond (1842), 2 Fed.Cas, 71,
Fed.Cas.No. 596, 3 Mclean 107.
"No officer can acquire jurisdiction by deciding he has it. The officer, whether judicial or ministerial,
decides at his own peril."Middleton v. Low (1866), 30 C. 596, citing Prosser v. Secor (1849), 5
Barb.(N.Y) 607, 608.
"The innocent individual who is harmed by an abuse of governmental authority is assured that he will be
compensated for his injury." Owens v. City of Independence, 100 S.Ct 1398 (1980)
" ...If one individual does not possess such a right over the conduct of another
[Good and Lawful Christian Man], no number of individuals [in a deliberative
body] can possess such a right. All combinations, therefore, to effect such an
object, are injurious, not only to the individuals particularly oppressed, but to the
public at large."People v. Fisher, 14 Wend.(N.Y.) 9, 28 Am.Dec. 501
"Non dat qui non habet---He gives nothing who has nothing."Bouvier's Law
Dictionary (1914),"Maxim,"p.2149, [No legislative body or man can convey any authority or
jurisdiction he does not possess over common Rights vested by God to another. Because legislative
powers are limited, all powers derived from legislative acts are limited.]
Jury Rights and Nullification
"The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact..." -- John Jay,
1st Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court 1789
"The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of it's prerogative
to disregard instructions of the judge..." -- U.S. vs. Dougherty, 473 F.2nd. 1113, 1139,1972
"Uniform Commercial Code"
"The entire taxing and monetary systems are hereby placed under the U.C.C. (Uniform Commercial
Code)" – The Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." - Article I of the Bill of Rights
Yesterday a Federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled the "Pledge of Allegiance" unconstitutional in a
two to one decision, which has in turn sent the media, the right, and the left into a complete frenzy. My
first thought is that the timing is very suspect - not of the ruling but of the media blitz. It’s a distraction
and is diverting energy from real issues like W199I. However, many of those around me have asked my
opinion so I guess I’ll throw in.
The ruling was aimed at the compulsory saying of the pledge in public schools, and as a person who
would lick Rosie O’Donnells hairy armpit before I sent my children to public school, I can safely say that
this decision is a moot point as far as I’m concerned. However, I’m a bit surprised at the reaction of
some of our so-called "intellectual elite." We’ll touch on that later.
Now, I’ve got a bit of a problem with any type of compulsory group reciting of anything. It always
seems to bring to mind images of those rallies the Nazis used to throw where 10's of thousands of
brainwashed lemmings would stand at attention and shout "sieg heil" over and over again. I would also
point out that pledging allegiance to a "flag" is moronic behavior; it’s an inanimate object. If you feel the
need to vocalize your beliefs - fine, but any flag can have its meaning bastardized at any time. Bill
Clinton and George Bush (one and 2) both have propagated a lot of evil on this world while waving the
Stars and Stripes, so remember, what our forefathers fought under that flag for and what is fought for
today can be polar opposites. As for the "under God" issue- most of you will remember that the phrase
83
"under God" was added to the pledge in 1954 at the urging of the Nights of Columbus (a shady
organization at best), and with Eisenhower’s help, pushed it through Congress. The argument was that it
would help separate America from the "godless commies" and has obviously paidoff
in spades. Nope, not a single sign of communism in our "homeland" - let’s keep shoutin’ that pledge.
Anyway, they inserted the phrase "under God" and everyone went home happy. No one thought to point
out that "god" is a completely generic word. Whose god? Is it Jehovah God? Is it Yehweh? Is it Thor,
god of thunder? Allah? Most Americans worship government as god, so it kind of makes sense that
children would be required to say it in public school, which leaves this decision even more confusing
when you think about it.
Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. . . Hmm?
The original pledge did not contain the words "under God" which I find much less offensive because of
the multiple meaning of the words, and any clearer definition would be an outright violation of Article Ia
certain attempt at "establishment of religion." Be honest, tax money in the form of public school class
room time, being used to have children pledge allegiance to Budda or even Jesus is unconstitutional. If
you don’t agree, then don’t bitch next time they ask for your finger prints when you want to carry a gun.
And I hate to break it to you but you cannot force a person to believe in anything. But what’s more, if
you honestly think that our nations well being rests on whether or not
the phrase "under God" is recited in the a.m. by school children, then you need to seek professional help.
The insinuation that if a child says the pledge daily that somehow he’ll grow up to be a fine up-standing
conservative is the type of trite expounded by those who think George Bush is actually a Christian.
Ostrich burgers, anyone?
Our nation is doomed for much BIGGER reasons, not the least of which is the fraud we call the Federal
Reserve. I would also point out that the Supreme Court ruled on the 27th that any students involved in
any extracurricular activity (Future Farmers of America, chess club, choir, etc...) are eligible for random
drug tests. No Article VI problem there. Perhaps we could reach a compromise: students would be
allowed to recite the pledge while pissing in a cup. There - liberty preserved.
You have to realize that this is all meant to seek and destroy any individualism that may be left in
America. When Bey Buchanan, and a host of other "conservative" mouth pieces, suddenly are allowed
air time by CNBC, it should raise a blood red flag with you. And have you ever noticed that when these
type of people get on live TV, they never attempt to change the subject to something more important?
"Bey, what do you think about this flag mess?"
"Well Flavor O’Day, I think we have much bigger issues in this country, such as a president who ordered
the FBI not to investigate Al Queda, and F-16's that were ordered to stand down when it was known
that 4 planes had been hijacked. And, we should probably be discussing the Bin Ladin/Bush family
business ties." The reason you’ll never see that is simple: It’s all controlled. It is a TV SHOW. They call
it PROGRAMING for a reason - snap out of it.
America, as it was intended, has ceased it exist. Get over it, and put your effort into taking it back.
They can require the kids to pledge whatever they want as far as I’m concerned. The "flag" has lost its
meaning to me, much like the way the Union Jack had lost its meaning to Thomas Jefferson and John
Hancock in 1775 (never really thought about that before, did ya?) That’s why this forth of July I’ll be
flying the Gadsden flag. You may remember seeing it; it is a yellow flag with a coiled rattle snake on it,
and the phrase "Don’t Tread On Me" inscribed below. The rattle snake is representative of a species
indigenous exclusively to North America and strikes only when its space is invaded - something I can
relate to. I also won’t be saying any pledge, to any flag , at all. But, for those of you out there
that just can’t live without one, try The Freedom Pledge. It’s being promoted by Jews for the
Preservation of Firearms Ownership and it goes like this. . .
I pledge my honor to the Bill of Rights, our precious national treasure.
As the Bill is a fortress against tyranny, I will battle all tyrants.
As the bill protects liberty, I will live free.
As the Bill guards rights born with all humanity, I will defend the freedoms of future generations.
84
With my life, my words, and my daily deeds, with a vision of what can be, I honor all of the Bill of
Rights for all mankind. Not perfect, but its point is well taken.
"... there was a time when a man stood strong. Right was right and wrong was wrong...
" Illinois is serious about saving lives." - Radio commercial airing in Illinois regarding the "Click it, or
ticket" program. Click it or ticket? How about "Kiss it and lick it?"
We must all do our part to keep the jackboots polished.
The only person who gets hurt when I don’t wear my seat belt is me - so leave me alone!
This is all such obvious conditioning; it’s getting you used to the check-points and having to show your
papers. Let’s face it, if they really cared about saving lives they would be spending all this checkpoint
over-time patrolling our borders - which are still wide open I might add. I suggest you check out
www.almartinraw.com and read the story about the "practice" check points that were shown on CNN.
You will very quickly get the picture.
Speaking of conditioning, this morning Ashcroft announced that they had arrested a man who was
plotting to explode a "dirty bomb." Maybe he was, or maybe he wasn’t. All I know is it works towards
scarring the GDP into compliance with whatever B.S. they want to force down our throats, not to
mention getting us to accept the violating of a persons constitutional rights in the name of terrorism.
You realize that this "terrorist" did not have a "dirty bomb", or any parts to build one. He is accused of
"knowing" how to build one (makes me wonder when there going to pick up Gen. Ben Partin.) This guy
is being held for learning information that any moron can get off the Internet; he has not been given
access to a lawyer, he has not been charged, and he is being held in a military brig indefinitely thanks to
the ‘Patriot Act’. They have classified him as an "enemy combatant" . . . . now correct me if I’m wrong,
but I don’t remember Congress every declaring war, do you?
So let me get this straight - the enemy is the "terrorists", and "terrorist" is defined according to the
‘Patriot Act’ as ". . .any person who commits an act which endangers human life and is a violation of
State or Federal law", so if you are pulled over for reckless driving, they can arrest you and hold you
forever as a . . . . heyyyyy. . . . Starting to figure this out?
I was once accused by someone of thinking "They" are out to get me. I answered with, " No, I think
they’re out to get all of us." You can run, but you can’t hide, and it’s time to start speaking out very
LOUDLY about this B.S. right now.
Of course, I recommend the ‘9-11 The Road To Tyranny’ video by Alex Jones (www.infowars.com), but
I have come across a new one that really has served as an eye-opener to every one that I’ve given it to.
It is ‘Truth and Lies of 9-11'
by Mike Ruppert (www.copvcia.com). Get this thing and watch it. Then, after you pick your chin up off
of the floor, start passing it around. It needs to go to every police officer in this country wether they
want it or not. We have to wake up as many people in the system as possible and it’s your responsibility
to help with that. VCRs for $60.00 are available all over the place so you have no excuse for not getting
the info out. You know, I still hear some people complaining about not being able to get others to listen.
Well, let me offer a word of advice - LEAVE THE UFO CRAP AT HOME! Why in the world would you
want to start in on some poor woman in the check-out line at the local ‘Toxofood’ about the
underground bases where the "Greys" are cloning an army of 3- eyed Hitlers to be used in a plot for
installing (during midnight visits) suppositories comprised of Rosie O’Donnells DNA? Even "if" it were
true [roll eyes here] you have no proof. You haven’t seen it, and even if you have you forgot to take
pictures so why don’t we stick with some provable facts. That person you are trying to wake-up has had
their life affected by the Federal Reserve. They, or a relative, or a friend of theirs has had a problem with
a bio-warfare related disease. They know someone whose child had a bad reaction to a vaccine. They
most likely don’t like what they see going on in the public schools. They might not know the dangers of
aspartame or fluoride. Explain the difference between a Republic and a Democracy, you’ll be amazed at
the positive response you get.
85
There are a million and one things that we have documented proof of and you need to pick a subject,
familiarize yourself with the facts, and carry the paper work with you. Nothing blows a persons mind
more than when you’re talking to them about a subject and you can produce documentation the second
they have doubt. Be nice, be friendly, and don’t make it confrontational. We are all suppose to be on the
same side, so make the person you are talking to feel comfortable. Make them want to ask questions- go
slow and don’t overload them. Stick to one subject, and after their brain starts to function again you can
give them a little more. Remember, very few of us have known the score our whole lives; most of us
were at one time or another in the dark and had someone spoon feed us info. So smile- joke about it a
little, you’ll get much better results. And if none of that works threaten to start removing fingers. Now
go out there and get ‘em.
"Loud! Wanna hear it loud! Right between the eyes..."
DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL
Right to Travel
DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS,
HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS
HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS
For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor
vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the
form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before
his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are
becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and
therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:
CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege,
but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived."
Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property
thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit
at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right
to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S
Constitution.
CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without
due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the
federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC
287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these
court decisions.
American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as
long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government -- in requiring the
people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without
question -- is restricting, and therefore
violating, the people's common law right to travel.
Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This means that the beliefs and
opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have
86
been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining
that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious
breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. That means it is
unlawful. The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises
profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws. The first of such
questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their
face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions -- such as
licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few
-- on a citizen's constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?
For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue. In
Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly:
"The state cannot diminish rights of the people."
And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60, "Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common
right and common reason are null and void."
Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point -- that there is no lawful method
for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people? Other cases are even
more straight forward:
"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name
of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which
would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F
486, at 489.
There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights."
Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946
We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers
our question - Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime,
for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall
be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary not one word withstanding."
In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State
Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States,
shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."
Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials? If we are
to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in
such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate or
deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law dictates that there are only
two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are:
by lawfully amending the constitution, or by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.
Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived
their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have
knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper
permits and registrations. There are basically two groups of people in this category:
DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL
It would seem that some people are waking up to this Insurance Industry/Government Bureaucracyinstigated
Driver's Licensing "Construction Fraud" long perpetrated upon the gullible American People
by its mind-controlling government.
87
It appears that we are no longer a nation governed by Constitutional Law, but have slowly and
incrementlly through mind control techniques (Propaganda) become a nation controlled and dominated
by bureaucratic regulation which operates under the shadowy "color" of law. Such could not happen if
the public "Traveller" who travels the public roadways in the "usual conveyance of the day," i.e., private
automobile, for nonbusiness, private purposes were not coerced into entering a contract without full
disclosure of the contract's terms being made at the time. Signing that contract without full knowledge
of its terms requires one to waive one's Contitutional Rights and accept the full terms of a regulatory
contract with penalties and sanctions designed to police the actions and conduct of those who use the
public roadways for business or profit. It is through such nefarious manipulations that confusion
regarding the relationship of a people and with its government emerges, wherein the Master -- the
people -- become the Servant, and the Servant -- the government -- becomes the Master. Such is the
transformation from Freedom to Tyranny when Rights are converted into Privileges.
Here in the United States, isn't it time we took back control of our country? Isn't it time we took back
control over our lives? How many reading this have been damaged psychologically and financially by
such fraud through fines, incarceration, and or coercive participation in mental health program followup,
and are up for joining in and launching a Class Action Law Suit against the government in this issue?
Yes, folks, the curtain has been lifted and it's about time YOU PAID ATTENTION to the WIZARD
BEHIND IT.
Clay Johnson
District Attorney
Josephine County, Oregon
500 N.W. 6th Street / Courthouse
Grants Pass, Oregon 97526
Mr. Johnson,
Free people have a right to travel on the roads that are provided by their servants for that
purpose, using ordinary transportation of the day. Licensing cannot be required of free people
because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a right. The drivers
license can be required of people who use the highways for trade, commerce or hire; that is, if
they earn their living on the road, and they use extraordinary machines on the roads. In other
words, if you are not using the highways for profit, you cannot be required to have a drivers
license.
Personal liberty consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one's
person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless
by due process of law. Streets and highways are established and maintained for the purpose of
travel and transportation by the public. Such travel may be for business or pleasure. The use of
the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common
and fundamental right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation
that would abrogate them. The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted
into a crime. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of
Constitutional rights. I believe a great fraud has been perpetrated against the free people of the
United States of America. Be advised that fraud vitiates the most solemn contract.
I do not make my living on the roads. I have never applied for a grant of driving privileges from
the State of Oregon in the form of a license. I was, however, on 10/15/2000, charged with the
offense of "No Operators License". I was given a summons to appear in the Grants Pass Circuit
Court. I was not required to sign the summons nor did I agree to appear. The state cannot
produce any document signed by me granting an attachment of equity jurisdiction between the
United States and me. The Josephine County court, without proper jurisdiction, has attached a
88
liability to me in the amount of $218.75 and assigned it to the Oregon
Department of Revenue for collection. I am being threatened with the issuance of a distraint
warrant. The DMV has issued me a license number for tracking purposes so they can record a
suspension of driving privileges. The state has converted my Constitutional right into a crime
without due process of law.
At this time I respectfully demand that all records involving driving or operating privileges, all
court records, all assignments, liabilities, and warrants having my name on them be destroyed.
This communication, in addition to you, is also being sent to all the major newsgroups on the
internet and other groups in the United States that are actively involved in restoring our sacred
liberties that are being taken from us one by one by more or less rapid encroachment. I believe in
the rule of law. I stand firmly against the abrogation of NATURAL RIGHTS
endowed us by our creator.
Sincerely,
A Concerned Citizen
Drug Wars
The Drug war is nothing but an excuse to take away the rights of people worldwide, especially
Americans, and keep the people at large from experimenting with realities outside the "status-quo".
Everyday we wake up to another person killed by the system because of the war on drugs, and every
day we wake up to more and more of our rights being taken away. And, all the while, every day, we
wake up in the same "frequency state" of being. The people at-large, the general public, wake up every
day, in the same "reality mode". Throughout the day, we put things in our bodies, like cigarettes
(nicotine), and pharmaceuticals, and caffeine, to alter our moods and feelings, but all the while we ignore
the substances that alter our minds. Somewhere herein lies a great hipocracy.
Our society doesn't think twice about some drugs, like Caffeine (coffee), and Nicotine (cigaretts). But
when it comes to drugs like marijuana, or LSD or Pychedelic Mushrooms, they are frowned upon. Why
is that? Do people not have common sense, or has common sense been railroaded by the New World
Propaganda Steam Engine. When you think about it, the drugs that should be legal aren't and the drugs
that should be illegal are actually, legal. The reason for this is to INFLATE PROFITS of the drugs that
are REALLY the most used and sought after. Marijuana for instance is the most widely used of the
"outlawed" drugs, and it costs $350.00/Ounce. It costs NOTHING to grow. (Outdoors). LSD costs
practically NOTHING, but sells for $5.00 a hit. This may seem insignificant, but the use of LSD by
people at large is a whole lot greater than one would think. And Mushrooms, which sell in the
supermarket for around $1.00, can fetch over $1000.00 for a pound if they are of the "Pyschedelic"
variety. Likewise, Cocaine and Heroin are much sought after drugs in our society and they sell for
astronomical amounts. Heroin goes for around $1,000,000.00 /Pound,
by the time it is broken down and sold through smaller quantities. Do you actually think this is
accidental? There is actually a three-fold agenda going on here. 1. Is to make as much money as possible
for the secret societies/secret government, through the drug trade, and 2. To use the prolifering drug
traffic and use as an excuse to "Crack-down" on our rights and liberties. This maintains a great degree of
control for the Power-structure. The people
who use the drugs and can't afford them have their lives ruined, and inevitably lose their jobs and wind
up in jail because they can't afford lawyers either, and this in turn employs and gives need for more
prisons and the entire prison industry, with it's massive Prison Guards Union and more. and 3. Is to keep
people from getting too far "out-there" in their thoughts. In other words, for "THOUGHT CONTROL".
The "Thought Control" comes in by limiting the amount of "Psychedelic" Drugs and Natural
Hallucinogens in our society. A society that is not limited in it's experimentation becomes something like
what you would see at a "Grateful Dead" concert. As a matter of fact, as much of a Grateful Dead fan
that I am, (God Bless Jerry's Soul), I do believe that they were used by the intelligence community to
89
see exactly what a "FREE SOCIETY" would be like, in a Microcosmic way. And I can say from
experience, that it would work very well, and with alot more LOVE and COMPASSION than we have
in our current society. Also, the interesting thing you see in the "Dead Community", is a
negative attitude toward "Bad" drugs, like cocaine and Heroine. Sure, there are people who use it, but
the overall attitude is one of disgust toward abuse of the body. Of course there are those that would
argue, and say that there were too many drugs, of a bad nature around, but it is usually because THEY
were doing them, and therefore they were
around people who were constantly doing them as well. If fact, the "Hard Drugs" were really pushed
into the "Psychedelic Community" to slow down the pace of consciousness, because things were
happening too fast. In our society things progress slow, because that is the only way the powers-that-be
can manage us. That all started in the late sixties, when the CIA brought the heroin back from the
Vietnam War. When it hit the street in the Haight Ashbury is when people say things started to go slowly
downhill. But, all in all, the "Dead Community" was and is an "Enlightened Society" and a Progressive
one as well. Who is really behind all this? The CIA, of course. And who is behind them? This is where
the information pipeline starts to deteriorate. On of the best books to document the Drug Trade and
Drug Money flow around the world is a
book titled "Dope Inc." by the LaRouche people, EIR. (This is where you have to be on your toes to do
this kind of research. Most people that are liberal casual drug users hate Lyndon LaRouche because of
his campaigns against drugs and the Drug Trade. Maybe he knows something that these people don't. I
don't believe LaRouche is an Evil Man. I do think he doesn't have much "Compassion" for drug users, as
he would like to lock them all up. But, he DOES have an understanding of the NATURE of "Drug
Politics". He also has probably THE BEST investigative organization, which is in reality an "Intelligence
Circle", from which he gathers his information.) I would strongly encourage anyone with an interest in
these matters to read this outstanding book.
There have been many people over the last twenty years that have written books documenting the
world-wide drug trade, and the CIA connections. What has not been so well documented is the "British
East India Company" involvement in the world-wide drug trade, and it's control over British
Intelligence, and thus, American Intelligence.
This stuff is a little harder to document, but nonetheless, it has been done. There just isn't as much
material on the subject floating around out there.
Education & the Lack Thereof
In the United States, we have the worst educational systems in the world. They used to be okay, but
compared to the Education that Europeans get, we are not even getting close. In Early America, the
colonists had college level educations by the time we would be heading into High School. Why do you
think that is? How could it be, that the Founding Fathers were in their Twenties and early thirties, when
they Drafted the Declaration of Independance, on their own!!!
Could anyone in this country do that today? I seriously doubt it. One must have a basic and fundamental
understanding of "Government", & "Economics" on a world-wide level to be able to Draft such a
document. Do you think anyone in the U.S today would be capable? I doubt it!!! I first started to learn
about the differences of American education with European education when I read Antony Sutton's book
"America's Secret Establishment - An Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones". This book has
always been one of my favorites, since it is so revealing, and was not put out by
the "Establishment". Sutton reveals to the reader, what is known as the "Look-Say" reading method,
wherein, a student is taught to associate a "picture" with a "word". This would mean that a teacher
would show a student a picture of a "Dog" and then tell him / her that that is a "Dog". Good enough??
Maybe, if you are trying to teach "Deaf and Dumb" people. You see, that is what "Look-Say" was
originally developed for. It was to teach "Deaf and Dumb" people how to read and write. It was not
developed for "Normal" people.
90
"Normal" people throughout Europe were educated by learning the "Root-Meaning" of the "Word". So
if a teacher was showing you a picture of a "dog", you would also learn where the meaning of the word
"Dog" comes from. Where the word "Canine" comes from. And that "word" comes from another word
and so on. (From Secret Establishment Pg.71-72).
Look-Say reading methods were developed around 1810 for Deaf Mutes by Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet.
Thomas H Gallaudet was the eldest son of Peter Wallace Gallaudet, a descendant from a French
Huguenot family, and Jane Hopkins. Jane Hopkins traced her ancestry back to John Hopkins and the
Reverend Thomas Hooker in the Seventeenth century, who broke away from the congregational church
to help found Hartford Connecticut. This parallels the story of the Lord family. The Lords also
traced their ancestry back to Hopkins and Hooker and the Lords founded Hartford Connecticut. And it
was in Hartford, Connecticut in 1835 that a printer named Lord produced Thomas Gallaudet's first
Look-Say Primer, "Mother's Primer".
Gallaudet's original intention was to use the Look-say method only for Deaf Mutes who have no
concept of a spoken language and are therefore unaware of phonetic sounds for letters. For this
purpose, Gallaudet founded the "Hartford School for the Deaf" in 1817. The Gallaudet system works
well for Deaf Mutes, but there is no obvious reason to use it for those who have the ability to hear
sounds.
Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet Jane Hopkins
Reverend Thomas Hooker
Anyway, in 1835 Mother's Primer was published and the Massachusetts Primary School Committee
under Horace Mann immediately adopted the book on an experimental basis. Later we shall find that
Horace Mann ties directly to the Order - in fact, the Co-founder of the Order. On pages 73 and 74 we
reproduce two pages from the second edition of 1836, with the following directions to the teacher :
"...pointing to the whole word Frank, but not to the letters. Nothing is yet to be said about letters..."
Why did Horace Mann push a methos designed for deaf mutes onto a school system populated with
persons who
were not deaf mutes?
There are two possible reasons. The reader can take his or her pick.
First, in 1853 Mann was appointed President of Antioch College. The most influential Trustee of
Antioch College was the Co-founder of the Order (Skull & Bones) - Alphonso Taft.
Second, Mann never had a proper education and consequently was unable to judge a good method from
a bad method for reading. By 1840, there was a backlash, and the Look-say system was dropped in
Massachusetts. But, Toward the end of the 19th century The Order came on the scene - and the Looksay
method was revived. The youngest son of Thomas Hopkins and Sophia Galludet was Edward Minor
Gallaudet. Two of his sons went to Yale and became members of the Order :
1. Edson Fessenden Gallaudet (1893 Initiated), who became an instructor of Physics at Yale, and
2. Herbert Draper Gallaudet (1898 Initiated), who attended Union Theological Seminary and became a
clergyman.
Then the method was adopted by Columbia Teachers College and the Lincoln School. The thrust of the
new Deweyinspired system of education was away from learning and towards preparing a child to be a
unit in the organic society. Look-say was ideal for Deweyits. It skipped one step in the learning process.
91
It looked "easy", and de-emphasized learning skills.
The educational establishment rationalized look-say by claiming that up to the turn of the century
reading was taught by "synthetic" methods, i.e. children were taught letters and an associated sound
value. Then they learned to join syllables to make words. This was held to be uninteresting and artificial.
Educational research, it was claimed, demonstrated that in reading words are not analyzed into
component letter parts, but seen as complete units. Therefore, learning to read should start with
complete units. Well, there is alot more to this than just the transference of the look-say method onto
our current reading and learning structure. There is also the Experiential Pyschology brought over from
Germany, under Hegelian Principles. This, I will get into at a later time)
The newest "Craze" among the Education proponents today is "Outcome Based Education" or OBE
Here are some relevant articles :
Outcome-Based Education": Spiritual Child Abuse as Reform, by Susan Welsh
Here is a List of Relevant Books & Videos :
* EDUCATING FOR THE NEW WORLD ORDER - B. K. Eakman - 1991 -
THE LEIPZIG CONNECTION : A Report On The Origin And Growth Of Educational
Psychology - Lance J.
Klass in collaboration with Paolo Lionni - 1993
THE LIES AND FALLACIES OF THE ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA : How Powerful and
Shameless Clerical
Forces Castrated A Famous Book Of Reference - Joseph McCabe - 46 P. - 1988 -
* OUTCOME - BASED EDUCATION : The State’s Assault On Our Children’s Values - Luksik
and Hoffecker - 1996 - 207 P. -
* ANYONE CAN HOMESCHOOL : How To Find What Works For You - Terry Dorian , Ph.D
and Zan P. Tyler - 1996 - 220 P. -
* BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS : Guiding Your Child Through the Dangers of the Changing School
System – Berit Kjos - 1996 -
* DUMBING US DOWN : The hidden curriculum of Compulsory Schooling - John Gatto - 1991
- 104 P. - Videos
ARE YOUR KIDS PROPERTY OF THE STATE ? - Education Expose -
MARIJUANA AS MEDICINE:
FACTS THE GOVERNMENT IGNORES
The DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) classifies marijuana as a dangerous drug with no medical
value. That classification contradicts mounds of evidence showing marijuana to be a very safe and
effective medicine. Marijuana is more effective, much less expensive, and much safer than many drugs
currently used in its place. Marijuana can provide excellent relief for those who suffer from cancer,
AIDS, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, chronic pain, arthritis, rheumatism, asthma, insomnia, and
depression. If knowledge of marijuana's many medicinal uses, its remarkable
safety, and hemp's enormous potential as a natural resource become widely known, the DEA fears that
support for Marijuana Prohibition will collapse, and thus threaten the DEA's budget. To maintain the
myth that marijuana/hemp is useless and dangerous, the DEA prohibits medicinal use of marijuana,
denies researchers access to marijuana for use in clinical studies, and rejects all applications to grow
industrial hemp. In 1988--after reviewing all evidence brought forth in a lawsuit against the
government's prohibition of medical marijuana--the DEA's own administrative law judge (Judge
Francis Young) wrote: "The evidence in this record clearly shows that marijuana has been accepted as
capable of relieving the distress of great numbers of very ill people, and doing so with safety under
medical supervision. It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for the Drug Enforcement
92
Administration to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of
the evidence." Judge Francis Young of the Drug Enforcement Administration went on to say:
"Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known. In strict
medical terms, marijuana is safer than many foods we commonly consume." Judge Young recommended
that the DEA allow marijuana to be prescribed as medicine, but the DEA has refused.
Although the federal government claims marijuana has no appropriate medicinal use, the federal
government contradicts itself by supplying government-grown, FDA-approved marijuana cigarettes to 8
seriously ill Americans remaining from its discontinued medical marijuana program. The federal
government closed its medical marijuana program in 1992 after the AIDS epidemic created a flood of
new applicants. In November 1996, California voters approved an initiative (Proposition 215) that relegalizes
the personal use and cultivation of marijuana for medicinal purposes.
Child Protective Services
Mission: To provide information and support for families attacked by Child Protective Services and child
welfare agents, especially those facing false or trivial accusations of child abuse or neglect; and for
researchers working to protect natural family rights. Represent Yourself in Court: How to Prepare & Try
a Winning Case By Attorneys Paul Bergman & Sara Berman-Barrett
The Shredding of Families By Dr. Lillian D. Dunsmore and Dr. Richard A. Dunsmore
Memoirs of a Baby Stealer: Lessons I've Learned As A Foster Mother By Mary Callahan
Protecting Children from Child Protective Services By Alan L. Schwartz
Dark Secrets within Child Protective Services By Teresa Cunio
Whores of the Court By Margaret A. Hagen
Custody of the State Christian Fiction By Craig Parshall
Here's one of the reasons why the states are eager to deprive you of your children and grandchildren
even though many of you never abused or neglected them.
There's other funding available to counties when they put children in fosterincarceration. This is not the
only federal funding stream they're after. Bounty Payments For Adoptions 2003
This information was released by the ACF in October 2004.
Adoption Incentive Program
FY 2003 Earning Year
State Total
Alabama $376,000
Alaska $116,000
Arizona $280,000
Arkansas $468,000
Colorado $546,000
Florida $2,544,000
Idaho $196,000
Iowa $1,048,000
Kansas $440,000
Kentucky $452,000
Louisiana $172,000
Maine $424,000
Minnesota $74,000
Mississippi $140,000
Missouri $494,000
Nevada $260,000
New Hampshire $88,000
New York $3,492,000
93
North Carolina $16,000
North Dakota $84,000
Ohio $376,000
Oklahoma $1,062,000
Rhode Island $40,000
South Dakota $20,000
Tennessee $264,000
Texas $908,000
Vermont $150,000
Virginia $386,000
Washington $1,560,000
Wisconsin $1,232,000
Wyoming $48,000
Puerto Rico $140,000
Total $17,896,000
Note:Some states aren't represented on this list because they received multi-million dollar payments in
the program during previous years. California is the biggest adoption money pig of all. This program
only pays for an increase in the number of adoptions from the year before.
HHS AWARDS $17,896,000 IN ADOPTION BONUSES
HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson today announced the awarding of $17,896,000 in adoption
bonuses to 31 states and Puerto Rico. The funding comes from the Adoption Incentives Program and is
given to states that were successful in increasing the number of adoptions from the public child welfare
system over the number of adoptions in 2002. This is the first time that bonuses have been given to
states and territories since the program was revised and strengthened in December 2003. The bonuses
go to state child welfare agencies for a variety of child welfare and other related services including
adoption and adoption-related services. _Adoption is a wonderful option for families and must be
promoted by all levels of government,_ said Secretary Thompson. _The federal bonuses we are
announcing reward states which have worked hard to help children -- particularly older children -- in the
child welfare system find loving, adoptive homes._ The Adoption Incentive Program, which was revised
and strengthened last December by the Bush Administration, for the first time adds a focus on the
growing proportion of children aged nine years old and above who are in dire need of adoption before
they _age out_ of foster care. Two key changes which strengthen states_ adoption and child welfare
services are:
An additional bonus of $4,000 to states for each child aged nine and above adopted from the public child
welfare system. This bonus is on top of the current $4,000 provided for each child and on top of the
$2,000 for each special needs child adopted; and The threshold to receive incentives has been reset
based on the number of adoptions in FY 2002, making states that reached their highest number of
adoptions in the earlier years of the program more likely to qualify for a bonus.
_President Bush has worked hard to increase the number of adoptions so more children can grow up in
safe, stable and loving homes,_ said Dr. Wade F. Horn, HHS assistant secretary for children and families.
_Today_s grants continue this Administration_s efforts to promote adoption from the foster care system
so no child will be left behind._
Currently, there are 129,000 children in the public child welfare system waiting to be adopted. Of this
number, approximately 50,000 children each year are placed into adoptive families. Approximately
19,000 children _age out_ of the foster care system without ever having the opportunity to be adopted.
The adoption bonus is in addition to a website previously launched by ACF --
http://www.adoptuskids.org -- aimed at the recruitment and retention of adoptive families for children in
the foster care system.
George W Bush, Political Terrorist
The earthquake began on Thursday, May 16th: The Bush administration had been warned by the CIA
94
months before September 11th of Al Qaida terrorists and plans to hijack airplanes. Nothing of substance
was done to address the threat ? "The proper agencies were warned," we were told, but no
representative of any pertinent agency has since stepped forward to acknowledge receipt of any
warnings. In fact, the spokesman for Massport, the Massachusetts state agency responsible for security
at Logan airport, stated bluntly in the pages of the Boston Globe that his agency never heard from the
Federal government regarding any hijacking threat. The two aircraft that destroyed the World Trade
Center towers and killed thousands of Americans went wheels-up at Logan.
By Friday the news was sprayed across the headlines of virtually every newspaper on the planet: Bush
Knew.
The implications were deadly for the Bush White House. Information had been given that indicated
terrorist attacks were imminent, but little if anything was done to prevent them. Concern for the profit
margins of the airline industry, which would have been crippled had a serious terrorist warning been
disbursed in high summer, were first offered as a good reason why no true measures were taken to
prevent the hijackings. Later, spokesmen like Ari Fleischer and Dick Cheney came forward to claim that
the warnings were "vague" and "nonspecific" and therefore not worthy of notice. We were told that the
hijack warnings pertained to "traditional hijacking"
scenarios, as if that forgave the lapse in security. The weekend political talk shows became a showcase
for spin, and the word went out for all to hear ? the Bush administration is blameless, and anyone who
says otherwise is a traitor.
The truly interesting part came on Monday. All of a sudden, the world was coming to an end. FBI
Director Mueller claimed there was no chance that another terrorist attack could be stopped. Dick
Cheney stuck out his jaw and stated bluntly that another terrorist attack was inevitable. Don Rumsfeld
said terrorists would definitely get their hands on nuclear or biological weapons, and then use them to
terrible effect. The newswires vibrated with images of suicide bombers on New York subways, and a
warning went out to apartment building landlords ? watch for suspicious characters, because the next
WTC-type catastrophe could be yours. The Statue of Liberty and the Brooklyn Bridge were draped with
bullseyes by the administration, though no one spoke of means to prevent these horrors.
The effect of these warnings was dynamic. People from coast to coast felt the clutch of fear in their guts
as images of smallpox and mushroom clouds flickered behind their eyelids. New York City, battered and
bruised, clenched its collective fist in a spasm of dread. It must be real, these threats, because the
President and his people say so. Let there be terror and meekness in equal measure on the streets of the
greatest city on earth.
And yet comes Wednesday, and an extraordinary series of revelations. An article in the May 21st edition
of the Toronto
Globe and Mail reported that, "the White House quietly acknowledged that the threats are not urgent
and that they are partly motivated by political objectives" and that "the blunt warnings issued yesterday
and Sunday do not reflect a dramatic increase in threatening information but rather a desire to fend off
criticism from the Democrats."
It seems that everyone can calm down. Horrific terrorist attacks are not, in fact, imminent. Everything is
well in hand. The Bush administration is merely using the fear and horror that another September 11thtype
attack may happen again as a means to deflect legitimate criticism from the Democratic Party.
Nothing to see here. Go about your business. This is, after all, just politics.
It was bad enough that Bush had made his crass 'trifecta' joke eight different times. You know this one:
Someone reported that Bush promised not to raid social Security or dive into deficit spending unless the
nation was faced with war, recession or national emergency. After 9/11, Bush was heard to crack on
eight separate occasions, "Lucky me, I hit the trifecta." Let it be noted that the country is running a
$66.5 billion deficit seven months into the budget year, and the 9/11 death toll between America and
Afghanistan stands above 5,000 souls.. That is one hell of a trifecta, and no laughing matter.
It was bad enough that Bush and his people were selling photographs of his phone calls during the 9/11
attacks to raise political funds. Al Gore called the practice "disgraceful;" the word is not strong enough.
95
The English language is deficient in words required to describe those who seek to profit from a day of
such blood and horror.
Now, with leaders like Daschle and Gephardt calling for a public investigation into the obvious
intelligence failures behind 9/11, we have well-known members of the Bush administration going on
national television to terrify the American people so as to avoid any questions. It wasn't enough for
Condoleeza Rice to go on CNN's 'Late Edition' to state that the administration was against a public
investigation into 9/11, as she did on May 19th. The American people needed to feel the wrath of pure
terror from this administration, to ensure that it would get what it wanted ? a continued
veil of secrecy and the surety that prickly questions would go unasked.
Why the veil of secrecy? Perhaps it is as simple as the story told by respected British journalist Gordon
Thomas, who has reported that Israel warned the American government on five separate occasions of
terrorist plots to attack prominent targets. As late as August 24, 2001, the Israeli security agency
Mossad informed the CIA that "terrorists plan to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack
important symbols of American and Israeli culture."
There are those who believe the absolute worst ? that Bush and his cronies knew of the 9/11 attacks in
advance, and allowed them to happen so they could advance nefarious personal and political goals. For
the time being, such accusations are totally unprovable and essentially irresponsible. The truth in hand,
however, is worse than the darkest conspiracy theory.
The Bush administration had specific information in hand from the CIA pointing to an airplane-based
attack on American targets. They did not warn agencies responsible for security at American airports,
nor did they beef up airline security by fiat. The FBI had specific warnings of terrorist attacks in hand
earlier in the summer of 2001, but a failure in the chain of command caused these warnings to go
unheeded. The same administration that had the 9/11 attacks happen on its watch has fought tooth and
nail to keep any investigation into the security failures that led to the attack from happening. Basically,
those security failures are still there, intact, deadly to us all. The warnings of impending catastrophe
from the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Mueller may prove to be a self-fulfilling prophesy because this
administration refuses to take responsible action to address them.
In fact, the Bush administration has proven itself more than willing to go to wretched extremes to keep
any investigation from gaining steam, by frightening the public with warnings of doom that they
themselves admit have far more to do with politics than reality.
We were wide open to attack on September 11th because of these security failures. We are wide open to
attack today, because the same irresponsible leaders in charge on 9/11 are calling the shots today. Rather
than work to protect Americans, they seek to terrify Americans as a means to cow any Democratic move
towards an investigation into the causes behind the 9/11 attacks.
If we are attacked again, they will have no one but themselves to blame. The Democrats asking for an
investigation are doing so because they want to protect Americans. Bush and his people are fighting this
because they want to protect themselves. They are purposefully making people afraid to further this
agenda. They play politics on a field littered with the bones of American dead, and they peddle fear to a
nation already saturated with woe. Such foulness is beyond contempt, and reeks of desperation. There
will be a reckoning.
The Genesis of the Emergency / War Power Act
Definitions:
Specie—Gold or silver coins of the coinage of the United States. Belford v. Woodward, 158 Ill 122, 41
Ne 1097.
Ballentine’s Law Dictionary Third Edition, 1969.
Enemy—The status of a person as an "enemy" for the purpose of the application of the Trading with the
Enemy Act is determined with reference to domicile or residence the territory of the nation which is a
belligerent against the United States rather than according to nationality, 56 Am. Jur 1st War Section 83,
96
Ballantines Law Dictionary Third Edition, 1969.
State—In Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary it defines State in 15 different ways. It is how it is
defined by a particular group of people when they want it to be applied by statute. It is such a gross
misrepresentation when the question is asked, "What is a State," that it is impossible to answer the
question without knowing how the law makers have defined it. But the true meaning of the word State
from its very origin means, "To Stand." Webster’s 1828 Dict. states; "n. L. status, from sto, to stand, to
be fixed. State is fixedness or standing." State in one sense means government, while State in another
sense mean people for tax purposes. It also says, "Estate; possession. Now obsolete."
Estate—n. L. status, from sto, to stand. The roots stb, std and stg, have nearly the same signification, to
set, to fix 1. In a general sense, fixedness; a fixed condition; now generally written and pronounced
state." Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary.
Again there are many meanings depending on how one wants to use the word as noted in the definition
of State above. There are a few people who have said that the Emergency and War Power Act written
into the Constitution was used by Roosevelt during 1933 to create certain laws that made us the enemy.
This statement is true to the extent that Roosevelt made us the "enemy" of the Federal Reserve System.
However, we have to go back further in History to find when these powers (Emergency Power /War
Power) were first and subsequently used.
The first use of the Emergency and War Power Act
The first use of the Emergency and War Power Act was by George Washington in 1791. Washington
used the Emergency Power portion of the Act. This was to enable Washington, at Hamilton’s insistence,
to use an existing private bank, controlled by the Crown through its British Board of Trade, to become
the first bank of the United States. Jefferson and two other men wrote constantly to Washington telling
him that there was no such authority in the Constitution to create a bank. Neither Jefferson nor the other
two men could sway Washington. Washington, using the Emergency Powers Act, went ahead and
created the First Bank of the United States. Also at this time he overlaid the states into "districts of the
United States." He did this so that those state banks, who after the creation of the first Bank,
were forced to contract with the First Bank in New York so they could continue to operate with United
States money. Washington did this because the United States deposited all the money it collected into all
the private banks in each of the states from before the Revolutionary war to the institution of the first
Bank of the United States. The United States wanted to centralize all its accounts in this First Bank
while allowing the hundreds of other banks scattered throughout all the states to continue to hold its
money. This is much like the corporate takeovers of today, where a large bank absorbs small banks that
continue to operate as satellite banks with all the accounts having to clear through the parent bank. This
then allowed the foreign British controlled bank to more easily collect and pay back the debt owed the
Crown by the State and United States as was directed in Article VI of the United States Constitution.
The First Bank The First Bank of the United States was not at all owned by the Congress but was
privately controlled by the British Board of Trade stockholders. The Bank, if begun in France, would be
called the First Bank of France. Do not let the terminology fool you into thinking that it was a Bank
created by Congress. The ownership was foreign. The "foreigners," noted as Stockholders, were many
Americans and therefore, foreigners to the international banking industry. Most of these foreign bankers
came from England. Chief Justice John Marshal held the second highest shares in this bank. The
documents I have, show that Marshall was considered a "foreign stockholder." He was foreign
because the bank was a foreign concern operating within America. Marshall, being a United States
citizen, was a foreign Stockholder.
The Tories were helpful in setting the stage for the inception of the Bank. The Tories were people
controlled and working for the King. The King did not want the Rothschilds or the Lombards to take
control of the first bank in the United States. The King wanted his bank of England to control the first
bank. This setup went back to the Treaty of 1783 and emanated from that treaty and those created after
97
that.
The Second major use of Emergency and War Power Act
Now we come to the second major use of the section in the Constitution. President Lincoln used the
War Power portion of the Act during the Civil War to create certain statutes, the most important being
12 Stat 319. One has to read 12 Statutes at Large 319 to see that the southern states people and all
others sympathetic to the south were declared "enemies of the State." The State of course being the
United States and not the individual States of the Union. One thing people do not realize is that the
word "Estate" is now termed "State" in America. The etymology of the word "Estate," is described in
Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language. After Lincoln was killed and President
Johnson took over, he immediately vetoed Lincoln’s War Powers Act, thereby making the south free
again and not under the War Power act. However, there was much debate about how the south
was forced to attend congressional meetings and really not allowed to secede from the Union. Some
northern state Senators were in sympathy to the south’s plight.
(One has to remember that the senators were not a part of the Congress as they are today since the
passage of the 17th Amendment. The Senators protected the State’s interests at that period in time while
the Congress, which today is known as the House of Representatives, protected the people’s interests).
The Northern States Congress vetoed President Johnson’s veto of Lincoln’s War Power Act, thereby
reaffirming that all Americans are enemies of the State. These acts can be found today in Title 50
sections 212, 213 and 215 and among
other U.S. Titles, i.e 28 USC. These are today’s forfeiture laws that the United States uses freely against
the people who are still declared "enemies of the State." The Congress liked this control. It then went on
to make the famous Reconstruction Acts of March 2, 1867, which put all the people under the military
Rule of the Reconstruction Acts.
Do not confuse this with martial law. It is not martial law. Under military Rule, civil authorities
administer the military rule. Under Martial law the military rules and moves aside the civil authorities.
Today Americans are still under Military Rule.
The Civil Rights Acts of 1866 failed because there was too much dissention among the states. These
Reconstruction Acts of 1867 were made which put into effect the War Power Act. The civil Rights Act s
resurrected as the 14th Amendment and passed by the northern states against the wishes of the southern
states. The eleven southern States were all put under Military law for a while and then the civil
authorities operated after the Reconstruction Acts were completed. The 14th Amendment has been
declared unconstitutional by many Law Reviews, The South Carolina Quarterly Law Review and
Scholars of law due to the above facts. Congress had now gained control of the enemy through the 14th
Amendment and everyone was therefore made a "United States citizen." The control would be complete
in every southern state including the northern states as well.
Now the Constitution cannot have a law applied only to certain states so it had to apply to all, including
the northern states as well. Now you know why we are, still to this day, the enemy of the State. Do not
think for one moment that you are not the "enemy" of the State. All one has to do is research what The
Informer, Montgomery, Stern and a very few other researchers have already uncovered that proves the
above points of fact. Now there is one point that needs to be brought forth which led to Lincoln’s
plunder of the people. The Civil War was fought over money, not civil rights of the black man.
That point has been made clear in our research. Right before the Civil war the United States and the
States were getting ripped off in what was called the "wildcat banking" swindles of the 1830 era.
To protect their assets the United States and the States created an Independent Treasury in 1841. This
Independent Treasury was short lived because the Whig party took control from 1842 to 1845 and
abolished it. After the Whigs lost the elections in 1846, the Independent Treasury was reestablished in
1846. It dealt in Specie, as demanded by the Constitution of the United States. The private banking
cartel of the Bank of England did not like this one bit. They had allowed the plunder of the States money
98
in the 1830 era. French bankers always had control of most of the southern
states. The south was known for having about 75 percent of the net worth of the country. This is why
the war was fought, so the Bank of England could obtain a bigger bite out of the commerce that was
taking place in the south. Albert Nock, in his book, "Our Enemy the State" did not bring forth the
reasons as I have in this writing. Right after the Reconstruction Acts, the "other" banking cartel, the
Rothschilds, started to gain a foothold into the banking system.
Before that everything was controlled strictly by the Bank of England and France. You have to
remember, the French banks were partially owned by the King of England. The King did not have
enough power to control French banks as he did his own in this country.
From the 1867 era until circa 1890 there was much strife with the gold and silver devaluation and the
stock market crash. This caused much concern within the banking system. After a long battle between
the English banking system and the Independent Treasury; the Girards, Vanderbilts, Goulds, Blairs,
Garretts, Rockefellers, Morgans, Astors, Mellons and the like, who were in league with the "other"
banking cartel, had a hand in creating the Federal Reserve banking system through their control of
government. However the Independent Treasury posed a problem to this cartel, in that the Independent
Treasury dealt in specie and U.S. Notes. People’s money, while in the Independent Treasury,
was protected, as well as was the States and the United States, because its reserves were adequate to
cover all the people’s money.
With much wheeling and dealing in private, with those mentioned in the above paragraph, the
Independent Treasury was abolished by the Act of 1920 in the year 1921. At this point those in the
Independent Treasury would have lost their jobs if Congress had not created the GAO, which is where
most of the treasury people went. The GAO is still the auditor for the United States. The Attorney
General and the Treasurer of the United States must report to the GAO all monies collected and
disbursed. The Attorney General does this in his or her capacity as Alien Property Custodian. We
are considered aliens to the States and United States, therefore our property may be seized under
forfeiture laws of the Alien Enemy Act. "Office Found" and "Estate/State"
As stated by the supreme court of Georgia 14 Ga 438, the people, which is you and me, are not parties
to the Constitution, only the States are. That is why the enemy is considered aliens. Do not for one
minute think you are the State. The State consisted of the Proprietors, wealthy land owners, Dukes,
Earls, Royal Governors and those holding property under grants by the King of his estate and their heirs,
forever. Those heirs were to hold the "office found" and are in complete control of the "Estate." Now all
you have to do is convert the word Estate to its legal meaning in America and you have "State" of the
compact, which you call Union. The Federal Reserve System then became the
Agents of the United States and the States. All the Independent Treasury’s real money and U.S. Notes
were to be kept separate from Federal Reserve Notes as stated in the abolition law;
See Title 5 USC 5512, Historical and Revision notes. "Insubsection (b), reference to the ‘General
Accounting Office’ issubstituted for ‘accounting officers of the Treasury’ on authority of theAct of June
10, 1921, ch 18, title III, 42 Stat. 23. Reference to the‘Attorney General’ is substituted for ‘Solicitor of
the Treasury’ and‘Solicitor’ on authority of section 16 of the Act of March 3, 1933, ch212, 47 Stat.
1517; section 5 of E.O. 6166, June 10, 1933; and section 1of 1950 Reorg. Plan No. 2, 64 Stat. 1261."
From 1922 to 1929 the private federal reserve agents of the United States used the gold and silver, the
"reserves," in overseas dealing in property and business. They used this for foreign business ventures
that fell through as bad deals. If people got wind that the Gold and Silver were depleted and if the
Federal Reserve Notes were to be cashed in, there would not be enough reserves left. That would be a
national emergency. Then a crash of the stock marked was created to draw the people away from this
fact.
The Third major use of Emergency and War Power Act
The Private Federal Reserve then wrote a letter to President Hoover. This letter, written by the lawyers
using the War Powers Act of 1917, was the basis for the President to declare a national emergency to
99
cover the Feds stealing of the people’s money. Hoover said no, as it was unconstitutional because the
Federal Reserve drafted it so that the people would become the enemy of the banking system. The
proposed Act, which subsequently became 48 Stat 1, would convert sec. 5(b) of the 1917 War Powers
Act to eliminate the American from the protected class of people and included them as the enemy.
Hoover left office on March 4, 1933. The "Hoover Papers" describe what went on from
March 1 to March 5 of 1933. Roosevelt took office on March 5th and immediately did what the Federal
Reserve wanted, word for word. On March 9, 1933, he called Congress into special session and told
them under Executive Order 2039 that they will pass this 48 Stat 1.
This act forbade any American from holding any gold or suffer 10,000 dollars fine and jail time. All of
this happened because the people wanted their real money (Specie) from the bank, who was supposed to
be protecting it.
The banks could not return to the people their own real money. They (the bank), had in essence, stolen
it. Rockefeller was the owner of the Bank of Chicago. This bank was the second largest in the country.
If a run on this bank was begun by the people, it would cause the bank to collapse. Rockefeller would
probably be hung by the people or at least be brought up on embezzlement charges as would all the
other banks in the Federal Reserve system.
Rockefeller and Roosevelt were law buddies and Roosevelt had to protect his friend.
This was the third use of the Emergency act. It was used to protect the banks. The first time it was used
to create the banks. Now we have the people as the "enemy" of the bank. That is why the banks had to
be closed for six days to allow the President to issue to all the banks a license. This license allowed the
banks to deal with the "enemy." That "enemy," dear reader, was and is, us..!!!
How do you control the enemy?
What was the real reason for the Social Security number? Is that not a license for the enemy, us, so we
can trade with the banks and also others that are not the enemy such as your fellow American? When
reading the entire 48 Stat 1 and attendant Agriculture Acts and all the alphabet agencies laws created by
Roosevelt, we are their enemy and are in need of a license. All one has to do to verify this is to obtain
Mr. Gene Schroder’s material as it is too lengthy to go into detail in this writing. Also pull all the
statutes, session laws of Congress, Congressional Reports that I have mentioned, and 12 USC 95 (a)&
(b) to see what I mean.
You must also pull the two U.S. Supreme Court cases in 1935, cited as 363 U.S. 603 and 301 U.S. 548;
the book titled, Social Security: The Fraud in Your Future, by Warren Shore; and finally, "Hearings
Before a Subcommittee of the COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS House of Representatives,
Eighty-Third Congress, First Session, Part 6, Analysis of the Social Security System, November 27,
1953, Pages 879 to 1521." In the above cited material it says that; Social Security is not a special Trust
Fund. It is not Insurance. It is a gift from government, and not considered income. It is not a contract. It
is a flat income tax on employees. The employer matches no funds because the tax on the
employer is a separate tax for the privilege of hiring workers.
That not one dime goes to a special trust because there is no such trust. All Social Security taxes go
into the general treasury. Congress can shut down Social Security anytime it wants as there is no
obligation on the Governments part to pay as it is merely statutory benefits. Payments are at the
discretion of Congress. Payments are to promote the general welfare of the United States only. There is
no vested or inherent right to receive Social Security payments. All these are true statements.
The statement quoted below is from the conclusion of the above mentioned Report and can be found on
page 1485 et seq. It will lead you to believe the Social Security number is nothing but a number to track
the "enemy" since the number does nothing for you.
"As already indicated, I am one who feels deeply that the level
of social insurance benefits must be kept within proper bounds lest the
system get out of hand and become a means of perpetrating a political
100
party in power. Once entrenched, the Executive would use social
insurance to enslave people. Hitler’s control of the German
social-insurance system enabled him to force individuals to conform to
his program. Those who deviated stood to lose their benefits. In
social-insurance we are therefore dealing with something that could
become an instrument of dictatorship."
Truer words were never spoken since no one can do anything without the number. Hitler’s principles
rule again and you truly are an enemy slave under the executive military rule. The government has told
you in its own words that the Social Security number is nothing more than an "enemies" license number
issued for the purpose of trading with the enemy.
SYNOPSIS
The Bank of England caused Washington to create the First bank of the United States in 1791 for the
purpose of controlling the money. It then ran into a problem in 1846 when the Independent Treasury
was created by the U.S. And the States to protect their own money. President Lincoln then made us the
enemy of the Government (State) by 12 Stat 319 in 1862 and Congress continued to keep the status quo
by the creation of the Reconstruction Acts in 1867. Then in 1868 the 14th Amendment placed the people
of both the north and south under the control of the military rule. The
"other" banking system, after gaining a foothold in 1913 by the creation of the Federal Reserve System,
caused the demise of the Independent Treasury. To complete the enemy status, Roosevelt finalized us as
enemies of the bank in 48 Stat 1, March 9, 1933.
It is the Congress that has enslaved the people of this country in order to placate the international
bankers of the Federal Reserve System and those of the "300." This is a little known group of
controlling people that operate above the law in this country and control the Congress. The people were
never in control of anything since day one (1787) and before. It is all smoke and mirrors for the purpose
of deceiving you and plundering. The total object from the 1791 Act by Washington, to the 1933 Act by
Roosevelt was to totally control the money and the labor of the people. This
encroachment on the people’s liberty took place over an extended period of time so as to not make
obvious that which would be otherwise intolerable.
The Social Security number plays but a small part in the overall scheme. Before the number existed,
your lineage were considered the enemy under the 1867 Reconstruction Acts and you, being their heirs,
are still the enemy today.
To the informed reader this paper gives the "why and how" , to the novice it gives "food for thought".
To both I ask the question "what is the remedy or recourse.?" Do you throw up your hands, totally give
up and continue submitting to our enemy, "the State" by licensure, remain in banking and all the
attendant snares that entrap you, or do you finally "draw your line in the sand ?". Control of Money was
the first step in your enslavement which has been nearly accomplished.
Now, fingerprinting, compelled use of the enemy’s SS (Social Slave) number in everything you do,
retina eye scans, plastic credit cards, body microchips, and national I.D. similar to old Germany and
Russian control of their people are on the horizon as the final step. Each reader has a talent, whether a
leader or a follower, and both must understand the task at hand. Individually we must make a difference
and work with others of the same mindset, because if we don’t........
This article is to Inform you of only one aspect of government and banking that you do not know about.
How you are controlled in this country by private corporations.
This is called fascism and how Mussolini operated in WWII. We have it here today and the people
(slaves in reality) think it is wonderful. With no real money in the hands of the people, its all debt, they
have no idea what real money is.
Gold standard is a scam devised by bankers way back in 1788 to put paper money into effect that had no
value unless backed by paper on a par basis. By that I mean a coin containing a certain amount of silver
101
or gold was the same value of a paper dollar. The paper dollar could be exchanged for a dollar of metal
coin. Today you cannot do that because there is no parity and the bankers have seen to it that it cannot
exist so as to unjustly enrich themselves at your expense.
Fawcet, in a work on Gold and Debt, says: "It is a trick of capital in all countries to persuade the people
that their honor is at stake in the payment of war debts at the highest valuation the avarice of the holders
may set on them."
Gold advocates declare that it is dangerous to allow the gold reserve in the Treasury--created ostensibly
to maintain the parity or equal value of the American dollars-to fall below $100,000,000. In March,
1894, it dropped below this amount and in February, 1894, it went down to $65,000,000--at which time
the American paper dollar was bringing a premium.
At this time, as of old, through the past history of bond issues by the United States, the international
bankers and saviors of the credit of nations appear upon the scene and enter into a secret contract with
the Secretary of the Treasury, and approved by the President of the United States, whereby, Morgan,
Rothschild, and associates buy $62,000,000 of United States bonds at about 1041/2 in gold--at which
time these bonds were worth $117.00 in the open market, and a little later went up to $120.00. The
syndicate, therefore, bought these bonds at about $10,000,000 less than their value
and the American people were saddled with an unnecessary debt, which they have to pay, principal and
interest, through taxation.
In one of my articles on the e-mail I described how the real bank of the United States, the Independent
Treasury, was causing fits with these International Bankers. The real bank of the people of this country
was called sub-treasuries for some strange reason. The international bankers had to get rid of it because
they could not control the money supply and actually control Congress or the President until they had
complete control. They did in 1921 and I described in detail how this came about and the result of it and
I also mentioned it in my book The New History of America. So with that
in mind I quote from another book by T. Cushing Daniel, published in 1924.
"The visit of Morgan in company with Baker, and Assistant Secretary of State, Robert Bacon, former
partner of J.P. Morgan, was described in the public press as follows:
"M0RGAN VISITS WHITE H0USE IN OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT BANK
"Washington, D.C., November 22, 1907.--The establishment of a Central Government Bank has been
earnestly discussed within the Administration circle for the last week.
"Two things have contributed toward making the Administration favor the plan.
"First, as has been stated, the relief funds released by the Government have not been handled by the
banks in a way to bring aid to the real business interests of the country, but rather to build up cash
reserve and favor specialized interests, the real business demands being ignored.
"Second, in the issue of the $100,000,000 certificates of indebtedness, the banks practically have
demanded that the Government turn the money over to them without recompense of any sort. The
Secretary of the Treasury was compelled to compromise with the bankers in order to get anything at all.
"Mr. Cortelyou announced this evening that he purposed to return to national banks subscribing for the
certificates, as a deposit of public money, 75 per cent. of the cash paid for them. The remaining 25 per
cent. will go for the time being to strengthen the cash balance of the Treasury.
"The transaction in the certificates of indebtedness leaves the Secretary of the Treasury in a ludicrous
light as a financier. Briefly, summed up, it is revealed that for the first time in
the history of the world probably a Government pays interest on its own deposits in the banks.
"Taking a round million as a basis under the terms made with the banks, the following transaction takes
place: The banks put up $250,000 and we promptly returned $1,000,000 in certificates of indebtedness
exchangeable for currency."
"These certificates of indebtedness carry 3 per cent interest. The other $750,000 supposed to be put up
is promptly returned to the banks as deposits.
102
"The purpose of the Treasury as announced by the Secretary to-day is to leave the money in the banks
and to increase the supply in the banks in every manner possible.
"In order to carry through the arrangement with the banks in the most expeditious manner, the Secretary
and the banks have completed described and the issuance of bank note currency may all be accomplished
simultaneously.
"The banks will include in their offers for certificates applications for increased circulation. They will
make the payments for the certificates in cash and securities to the sub-treasuries, and receive in return,
not the certificates themselves, but bank notes to the full amount of the certificates purchased."
This last deal with the United States Treasury occurred less than a month after the Secretary of the
Treasury had given these men the use of $34,033,000 of the money of the tax-payers of this country, at a
critical time during the panic. This was in addition to over $150,000,000 that had already been deposited
of the people's money in national banks without interest, and by December 31, 1907, amounted to
$245,556,944. This enormous amount of the people's money was deposited in these banks, when by the
testimony before the Banking and Currency Committee of Congress these national-banks were unable to
pay into the United States Treasury the 5 per cent. Cash guarantee to the Government to protect their
bank-note circulation. This brings to mind the one-sided partnership that exists between the Treasury of
the United States and the banks.
Here is a specimen on how the business is carried on by the fiduciary department of the Government
representing the people, and the present banking system.
"The United States Treasury does queer things. On August 22, 1907, I personally directed the attention
of Secretary Cortelyou to some $4,000,000 of false entries made daily at the sub-treasury in New York.
These entries are described in the report on fiscal system (page 76) as receipts of checks 'converted into
cash before final credit is given in the accounts involved '--that is, checks' are received from the clearinghouse
and paid with other checks sent there for collection, the checks being exchanged or swapped
without handling any money except the difference--but the amount
balanced is falsely entered as gold certificates, for the most part, with additional entries of United States
notes, silver certificates, fractional silver, nickels, and
copper to make up the exact sum. My letters to Secretary Cortelyou detailing falsifications to the
amount of $1,279,563,526 for the fiscal year 1906 were printed in the Congressional Record March 2,
1908, pages 2829-31.
"False entries engender false ideas. The false entries I complain of are made to conceal the fact that
every year checks aggregating several hundred million dollars are received at the sub-treasury in New
York and paid by balancing accounts.
"In 1907 the Treasury Department had over $250,000,000 of available cash balance on hand or in banks,
and $111,000,000 of United States bonds to pay off. By the use of bank deposits and checks drawn on
them the operation would have been as simple as checking $111 out of $250 deposited. The Treasury
seems to have considered the operation impracticable. Secretary Cortelyou paid $61,000,000 of the
bonds and to pay off $50,000,000 more, instead
of using the cash on hand or in banks, borrowed $50,000,000 to be repaid in 23 years (1930), with
$1,000,000 a year interest, that is, the Secretary bound the United States to pay $23,000,000 before
paying the principal, which was as purely a waste of $23,000,000 as if it had been stolen.
"JAMES C. Hallock, Washington, D.C."
It can be clearly seen that Congress and the United States Treasury no longer represent the people. The
greatest standing reflection upon the boasted intelligence of our people is their thoughtless submission to
the present infamous currency system--money based on debts, Banks of Issue, and gold redemption.
And so it is today with the people believing that somehow these banks of today are theirs. They believe
they are government banks and Congress has control. Even patriots say why not audit the banks? That is
like saying that the government should audit your neighbor or they should audit Wal-Mart. The
government cannot audit private concerns period.
The banking industry is private and the federal courts have so stated as late as 1992. Robert Rubin is
103
Governor of the International Monetary Fund today which was created by the private federal reserve
bank in 1916. You should all be aware that the Bank of England owns every federal reserve bank and
affiliates in this country. They cut deals all the time that you have no idea what is going on. The deal cut
in 1908 is now put before you. It is not in its entirety but the important parts are included:
"This agreement entered into this 8th day of February, 1895, between the Secretary of the Treasury of
the United States, of the first part, and Messrs. August Belmont & Co., of New York, on behalf of
Messrs. N.M. Rothschild & Sons, of London, England, and themselves, and Messrs. J.P.
Morgan & Co., of New York, on behalf of Messrs. J. P. Morgan & Co., of
London, and themselves, parties of the second part.
"Witnesseth: Whereas it is provided by the Revised Statutes of the United States (section 3700) that the
Secretary of the Treasury may purchase coin with any of the bonds or notes of the United States
authorized by law, at such rates and upon such terms as he may deem advantageous to the public
interests; and the Secretary of the Treasury now deems that an emergency exists in which the public
interests require that, as hereinafter provided, coin shall be purchased with the bonds of the United
States, of the description hereinafter mentioned, authorized to be issued under the act entitled
'An act to provide for the resumption of specie payments,' approved January 14, 1875, being bonds of
the United States described in an act to Congress approved July 14, 1870, entitled 'An act to authorize
the refunding of the national debt.' "Now, therefore, the said parties of the second
part[Rothchilds/Morgan] hereby agree to sell and deliver to the United States 3,500,000 ounces of
standard gold coin of the United States, at the rate of $17.80441 per ounce, payable in
United States 4 per cent. thirty-year coupon or registered bonds, said bonds to' be dated February 1,
1895, and payable at the pleasure of the United States after thirty years from date, issued under the acts
of Congress of July 14, 1870, January 20, 1871, and January 14, 1876, bearing interest at the rate of 4
per cent. per annum, payable quarterly.
"First. Such purchase and sale of gold coin being made on the following conditions:
"(1) At least one-half or all coin deliverable hereinunder shall be obtained in and shipped from Europe,
but the shipments shall not be required to exceed 300,000 ounces per month, unless the parties to the
second part[Rothchilds /Morgan] shall consent thereto.
"(2) All deliveries shall be made at any of the subtreasuries or at any other legal depository of the United
States.(1)
"Second. Should the Secretary of the Treasury desire to offer or sell any bond of the United States on or
before the 1st day of October, 1895, he shall first offer the same to the parties of the second
part;[Rothchilds / Morgan] but thereafter he shall be free from every such obligation to the parties of the
second part[Rothchilds /Morgan].
"Fifth. In consideration of the purchase of such coin the parties
of the second part[Rothchilds /Morgan], and their associates hereunder assume and will bear all the
expense and inevitable loss of bringing gold from Europe hereunder; and as far a lies in their power, will
exert all financial influence and will make all legitimate efforts to protect the Treasury of the United
States against the withdrawals of gold pending the complete performance of this contract.
"In witness whereof the parties hereto set their hands in five parts this 8th day of February,; 1895.
"J. G. CARLISLE,
"Secretary of the Treasury.
"AUGUST BELMONT & CO. "On behalf of Messrs. N.M. Rothschild & Sons, London and themselves.
"J. P. MORGAN & CO.
"On behalf of Messrs. J.P. Morgan & Co., London, and themselves.
"Attest:
"W. E. CURTIS,
" FRANCIS LYNDE STETSON."
In return for a profit of about $10,000,000 these gentlemen obligate themselves not to raid the gold
reserve of the Government by the use of outstanding credit money until they complete their contract.
104
Footnote 1- This would allow the gold to still remain in the banks as depositories of the United States.
The only way to stop this private cartel and its private collection agency, the IRS, is to stop using banks
for anything. Use cash or U.S. Postal Money Orders. Insist that Congress issue U.S. Notes that are
interest free? Not on their dying bed will they do that because of their contracts are with the banking
system, NOT YOU. Besides, you cannot, by law, obligate a private contract.
If you could, no contract that you ever made with a friend would ever be safe. No, the only way will be
to use coin which is minted by the government and not the banking system. Start using Susan B dollars,
quarters, etc., even though these are a fraud upon the people also, because these have cost the
government money to coin that they cannot afford to stop using.
However, people are so used to plastic and paper checks that they will still let the banks rape them
gleefully. So it is a folly to think anything will change by the writing of this article. Just think of the other
contracts besides that of 1908 that have taken place behind closed doors that you don't know about.
People will have to become so destitute, such as a mass loss of foreclosures on houses to wake them up.
But alas the bankers will "come to the rescue" and lull the people into thinking they will be saved by the
kind hearted banker and they will become even further enslaved by the system. And don't think that for
one moment that the fortune 500 companies don't have a hand in controlling the people as they are tied
totally to the banking system. Of course these corps and banks control Congress and is of absolutely no
meaning and is a waste of time to go, write or ask anything from Congress. They could care two tinker's
damn about you. They know which side their bread is buttered on, everyone of
them and that goes all the way down to local government as well.
Citizenship, income taxes and Constitutional
limitations on government.
This page is provided to assist people in their investigation of the issue of sovereign citizenship and
other related topics
such as the federal income tax and limited federal jurisdiction. This page will provide clips from court
opinions and
other quotes from within the law which can help you understand your status in this country.
28 USC 2201, Why you see tax protesters losing in Federal courts.
Federal Jurisdiction within the States, a government report.
The Buck Act, how the federal government crossed it's territorial limits into the states.
The Kentucky Resolution, objection to the federal gov't for invading state control on citizenship.
The Virginia Resolution, objection to the federal gov't for invading state control on citizenship.
U.S.A. Republic The 14th Amendment
The 14th Amendment- Equal Protection Law or Tool of Usurpation (Congressional Record)
Dyett v. Turner 14th Amendment not ratified.
The Cheek Case a defense still valid against the I.R.S.
United States v. Cruikshank , citizenship.
Dred Scott v.John Sandford or Taney v. Curtis, citizenship.
Slaughterhouse Cases , Supreme Court opinion; citizenship.
THE BRUSHABER DECISION , the true meaning of the 16th Amendment
The Lloyd Long Case (html) , victory over the I.R.S.
(1)
"By metaphysical refinement, in examining our form of government, it might be correctly said that there
is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. But constant usage -arising from convenience, and
perhaps necessity, and dating from the formation of the Confederacy - has given substantial existence to
the idea which the term conveys. A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called
a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a
citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the
105
states, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common
understanding of the expression as used in the constitution, which must be deduced from its various
other provisions. The object then to be obtained, by the exercise of the power of naturalization, was to
make citizens of the respective states."
Ex parte Knowles, 5 Ca. 300, 302 (1855)
(2)
3A Am Jur 1420, Aliens and Citizens
"A person is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, for purposes of acquiring citizenship at
birth, if this birth occurs in a territory over which the United States is sovereign..."
(3)
"The 14th Amendment creates and defines citizenship of the United States. It had long been contended,
and had been held by many learned authorities, and had never been judicially decided to the contrary,
that there was no such thing as a citizen of the United States, except by first becoming a citizen of some
state."
United States v. Anthony (1874), 24 Fed. Cas. 829 (No. 14,459), 830.
(4)
"We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the
several states.
Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it
allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same
time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a state, but his rights of citizenship under one of these
governments will be different from those he has under the other."
U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).
(5)
"Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary
for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state."
Crosse v. Bd. of Supvr,s of Elections, 221 A.2d. 431 (1966)
(6)
Blair v. Ridgely, 97 D. 218,249, S.P.
"Prior to the adoption of the federal Constitution, states possessed unlimited and unrestricted
sovereignty and retained
the same ever afterward. Upon entering the Union, they retained all their original power and
sovereignty..."
(7)
George Bancroft
" Our Union in its foreign relations presents itself with all its states and territories as one and indivisible;
a garment without a seam; BUT at home we are separate sovereign states of the union. Within the limits
of the states, the government of the United States has no powers but those that have been delegated to
it."
(8)
Rule 12. Defenses and Objections-
(b)"...the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion.:
(1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.
(2) lack of jurisdiction over the person... a motion making any of these defenses shall be made BEFORE
PLEADING...
(h)(3) Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of
the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.
(9)
In the 1945 ,Hooven and Allison Co. v. Evatt, the Supreme Court defined
"United States", perhaps for the last time.
106
The term "United States" may be used in any ONE of the several senses:
(1) It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other
sovereigns in the family of nations. (2) It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the
United States extends OR (3) It may be the collective names of the states which are united under the
Constitution.
The Court also defined the two types of legislative powers of Congress. Legislation in respect to the (2)
definition and legislation in respect to (3) definition.
"In exercising its constitutional power to make all needful regulations respecting territory belonging to
the United States, " (2) " Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations as when
legislating for the United States."
(3)
(10)
June 16th, 1909, President Taft's speech to Congress.
"...It is now proposed to make up the deficit by the imposition of a general income tax, in the form and
substance and almost exactly the same character as that which, in the case of Pollock v. Farmers Loan
and Trust Co was held by the supreme Court to be a direct tax, and therefore not within the power of
the federal government to impose unless apportioned among the several states according to population...
I, therefore, recommend an amendment to the tariff bill
imposing upon all corporations and joint stock companies for profit, except national banks otherwise
taxed, measured by 2% on the net income of such corporations. This is an excise tax upon the privilege
of doing business as an artificial entity and the privilege of freedom from a general partnership liability
enjoyed by those who own the stock. This course is much to be preferred to the proposal of reenacting a
law once judicially declared to be unconstitutional."
(11)
Amendment 14, Section 1
"The opening clause of this section makes national citizenship primary and State citizenship derivative
therefrom."
referring to 14th Amendment citizenship." The definition it lays down of citizenship 'at birth' is not
however, exhaustive, as was pointed out in connection with Congress's power to 'establish an uniform
rule of naturalization'.
Subject to the jurisdiction thereof': The children born to foreign diplomats in the United States are not
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and so are not citizens of the United States. With this
narrow exception all persons born in the United States are, by the principle of the Wong Kim Ark case,
Entitled to Claim citizenship of the United States." There is no imposition. It is a voluntary act, that
once claimed, can not be taken away by the government.
(12)
Charles Warren, Pulitzer Prize winner for his books on American law and history, praised the
Slaughterhouse causes, limiting the scope of the 14th Amendment. "Had the case been decided
otherwise the States would have largely lost their autonomy and become, as political entities, only of
historic interest... The boundary lines between the States and the National Government would be
practically abolished, and the rights of the citizens of each state would be irrevocably fixed as of the date
of the Fourteenth Amendment. " The Slaughterhouse case was "one of the glorious landmarks of
American law." Editors note that within a few decades of this publication, (1920's) what Charles Warren
warned of, grew to happen. Thus we have the situation today where a majority of Americans believe
they are all Federal citizens.
(13)
In another case, Chief Justice Waite stated, " By the 5th Amendment, It (federal limitations) was
introduced into the Constitution of the United States as a limitation upon the powers of the National
government and by the 14th, as a quarentee against any encroachment upon an acknowledged right of
citizenship by the Legislatures of the States..."
107
(14)
We should know of the grave error Justice Taney made in the Dred Scott decision. I'll follow the
respected opinion of Judge John Appleton, of the Maine Supreme Court in which he said, "Justice Taney
says 'every person... recognized as citizens of the several states, became also citizens of this new political
body'... Taney's opinion therefore, rests upon a
remarkable and most unfortunate misapprehension of facts. Taney would have concurred with (Justice)
Curtis had the facts... been pointed out to him."
(15)
Federal Constitutional debates. "Friday, June 15, 1787...
8. Resolved that rule for naturalization ought to be the same in every state."
This gives Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 a whole new meaning now doesn't it?
(16)
Girty v. Logan 6 Bush Ky. 8
"It is an elementary rule of pleading, that a plea to the jurisdiction is... a tacit admission that the court
has a right to judge in the case, and IS A WAIVER TO ALL EXCEPTIONS TO THE
JURISDICTION."
To challenge Federal jurisdiction, the challenge must be made and responded to before a plea is made.
(17)
Public Law No 8177 re: Buck Act, redefines "the states" as only territorial states, federal enclaves and
instrumentalitys.
It is within these federally zoned areas that the federal government and its laws extend. (exception for
Art. Sec 8 laws)
The Public Law further explains that it is the inhabitants of these federal areas that become subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States.
(18)
New Orleans v. United States 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 662
"Special provision is made in the Constitution for the cession of jurisdiction from the states over places
where the federal government shall establish forts or other military work. And it is ONLY IN THESE
PLACES or in territories of the United States, where it can exercise a general jurisdiction."
(19)
Handbooks for Special Agents.
(Constitutional Law s342.12)
(2) "The privilege against self-incrimination does not permit a tax payer to refuse to obey a summons
issued under IRC s7602 or a court order directing his/her appearance. He/she is required to appear and
cannot use the Fifth Amendment
as an excuse for failure to do so, although HE/SHE MAY EXERCISE IT IN CONNECTION WITH
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.
[Landy v. U.S.] He/she cannot refuse to bring his/her records, but MAY DECLINE TO SUBMIT
THEM FOR INSPECTION ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS.
So, another pointer to remember, if the IRS makes you go, GO. If the IRS demands your records,
BRING THEM, BUT use your 5th Amendment Right not to show your records and use the 5th
Amendment in order to not answer any questions. ALSO KEEP IN MIND, do not refuse to answer all
questions that have not been asked yet. Refuse to answer them as each one is asked. If you refuse to
answer all questions before they are asked, it becomes a blanket Fifth and the judge can overrule your
5th Amendment rights to not answer.
(20)
USC Title 18 s 451 Par 3d
"Criminal jurisdiction of the federal courts is restricted to federal reservations over which the Federal
Government has exclusive jurisdiction, as well as to forts, magazines, arsenal, dockyards or other
needful buildings."
108
(21)
"Congress has taxed income, NOT COMPENSATION. Conner v. US 303 F Supp 1187 '69
(22)
If the 14th Amendment had created a national citizenship, imposed upon the states and their citizens, the
Amendment would have also created suffrage for women (i.e.). Prior to the Slaughterhouse cases, every
one was using the 14th Amendment to legalize something or another under the claim of being a U.S.
citizen. The most well known being Susan B. Anthony. But, as Susan B. Anthony found out, as well as
thousands of others the Amendment was to give citizenship to the former slaves and to protect their
rights, nothing else. As the Chicago Tribune stated, in response to the Slaughterhouse cases, it "will put
a quietus upon the thousand and one follies seeking to be legalized by hanging on
to the Fourteenth Amendment... The decision has long been needed as a check upon the centralizing
tendencies of the Government..." In specific, the Court stated "...that the only LEGAL AFFECT is to
make full-fledged citizens of negros, but leaving the government of the country in all other respects
precisely the same as if the Constitution had stood as first adopted, and no negro had ever left his native
Africa."
(23)
"Any way, getting back to the subject, the 16th did not repeal anything. It is even believed that because
the 16th was for a specific tax, it was not necessary to repeal either of the other tax clauses because
those clauses were about taxation in general. This brings me back to my family secret, the words
"without apportionment among the several states. " Please refer to Black's Law Dictionary under
Apportionment and then under the subsection Taxes. "The apportionment of a
tax consists in a selection of the subjects to be taxed, and in laying down the rule by which to measure
the contribution which each of these subjects shall make to the tax." By the Amendment specifying
"without apportionment among the several states", the amendment is specifying that the states are not
within the scope of the amendment, the purpose thus then implying that the income tax if for within
federal areas only."
(24)
Jack Warren Wade Jr., Former IRS officer. He was in charge of the IRS' nationwide Revenue Officer
training program, "The Tax Code represents the genius of legal fiction... The I.R.S. has never really
known why people pay income taxes... The IRS encourages voluntary compliance, through fear."
(25)
Financial Survival, Issue I 1990
"Former I.R.S. Commissioner Roscoe Egger resigned in April of 1986 after publicly admitting that 35
million Americans no longer file personal income taxes!"
(26)
"In a recent conversation with an official at the Internal Revenue Service, I was amazed when he told me
that, 'If the Taxpayers of this Country ever discover that the IRS operates on 90% bluff, the entire
system would collapse' ".
Sen. Henry Bellmon (1969)
(27)
From the Kentucky Resolution of 1798
IV. Resolved, that alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein
they are; that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the
individual States distinct from their power over citizens; and it being true as a general principle, and one
of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared that "the powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or
to the people," the [Alien Act of June 22, 1798], which assumes power over alien
friends not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void and of no force....
(28)
"...it has been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States except as he was a
109
citizen of one of the States composing the Union. Those, therefore, who were born and always resided
in the District of Columbia or in the Territories, though within the United States, were not citizens..."
definition before the 14th Amendment "
"...the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state is clearly
recognized. Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a state, but
an important element is necessary to make the former, the latter. He must reside in the state to make him
a citizen of it, but it is not necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United States to
become a citizen of the Union..." definition after the 14th Amendment. Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall.
36,72,73,74 (1873)
(29)
"The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects very few rights because it neither
incorporates the Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. Instead this provision
protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; It does not protect those
rights which relate to state citizenship."
Jones v. Temmer 829 F. Supp. 1226
(30)
"No white person born within the limits of the United States and subject to THEIR jurisdiction... or born
without those limits, and subsequently naturalized under THEIR laws, owes his status of citizenship to
the recent amendments to the
Constitution. The purpose of the 14th Amendment... was to confer the status of citizenship upon a
numerous class of persons domiciled within the limits of the United States who could not be brought
within operation of the naturalization laws because native born, and whose birth, though native, at the
same time left them without citizenship.
Such persons were not white persons but in the main were of African blood, who had been held in
slavery in this country..."
Van Valkenburg v Brown 43 Cal 43. 47 (1872)
(31)
"...the 14th Amendment is throughout affirmative and declaratory, intended to ally doubts and to settle
controversies which had arisen, and NOT TO IMPOSE ANY NEW RESTRICTION UPON
CITIZENSHIP." U.S. v Wong Kim Ark 169 US 649.687,688
(32)
A predictive warning of what has eventually happened.
"The idea prevails with some, indeed it has expression in arguments at the bar, that we have in this
country substantially two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its
restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by
exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to... I take leave to say that, if the
principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and
mischievous change in our system will result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional
liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism... It will be
an evil day for American Liberty if the theory of a government outside the Supreme Law of the
Land finds lodgment in our Constitutional Jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to
exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution."
Honorable Supreme Court Justice John Harlan in the 1901 case of Downes v. Bidwell.
(33)
Recent hope.
"Congress exercises its confirmed powers subject to the limitations contained in the Constitution. If a
state ratifies or gives consent to any authority which is not specifically granted by the Constitution of the
United States, it is null and void. State officials cannot consent to the enlargement of powers of
Congress beyond those enumerated in the Constitution."
Sandra Day O'Conner in the 1992 case of New York v. United States
110
34
"The more intelligent adversaries of the new Constitution admit the force of this reasoning; but they
qualify their admission by a distinction between what they call INTERNAL and EXTERNAL taxation.
The former they would reserve to the State governments; the latter, which they explain into commercial
imposts, or rather duties on imported articles, they declare themselves willing to concede to the federal
head.", Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 36
35
"A citizen of the United States is ipso facto and at the same time a citizen of the state in which he
resides. While the 14th Amendment does not create a national citizenship, it has the effect of making that
citizenship 'paramount and dominant' instead of 'derivative and dependent' upon state citizenship."
Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U. S. 404, 427.
36
"The (14th) amendment referred to slavery. Consequently, the only persons embraced by its provisions,
and for which Congress was authorized to legislate in the manner were those then in slavery."
Bowlin v. Commonwealth (1867), 65 Kent. Rep. 5, 29.
37
"It is claimed that the plaintiff is a citizen of the United States and of this state. Undoubtedly she is. It is
argued that she became such by force of the first section of the 14th Amendment, already recited. This,
however, is a mistake."
Van Valkenberg v. Brown (1872), 43 Cal. Sup. Ct. 43, 47
38
"After the adoption of the 13th Amendment, a bill which became the first Civil Rights Act was
introduced in the 39th Congress, the major purpose of which was to secure to the recently freed Negroes
all the civil rights secured to white men. . . .(N)one other than citizens of the United States were within
the provisions of the Act."
Hague v. C. I. O., 307 U. S. 496, 509.
39.
I.R.S., "The file requirement for 01 is return not required to be mailed or filed."
U.S. v. Lloyd Long
HOW HARMFUL IS MARIJUANA?
ANNUAL AMERICAN DEATHS CAUSED BY DRUGS
TOBACCO ........................ 400,000
ALCOHOL ........................ 100,000
ALL LEGAL DRUGS ................ 20,000
ALL ILLEGAL DRUGS .............. 15,000
CAFFEINE ....................... 2,000
ASPIRIN ........................ 500
MARIJUANA ...................... 0
----------------------------------------
Source: United States government...
National Institute on Drug Abuse,
Bureau of Mortality Statistics
Like any substance, marijuana can be abused. The most common problem attributed to marijuana is
frequent overuse, which can induce lethargic behavior, but does not cause serious health problems.
Marijuana can cause short-term memory loss, but only while under the influence. Marijuana does not
impair long-term memory. Marijuana does not lead to harder drugs. Marijuana does not cause brain
damage, genetic damage, or damage the immune system. Unlike alcohol, marijuana does not kill brain
cells or induce violent behavior. Continuous long-term smoking of marijuana can cause bronchitis, but
111
the chance of contracting bronchitis from casual marijuana smoking is minuscule. Respiratory
health hazards can be totally eliminated by consuming marijuana via non-smoking methods, i.e.,
ingesting marijuana via baked foods, tincture, or vaporizer.
A 1997 UCLA School of Medicine study (Volume 155 of the American Journal of Respiratory & Critical
Care Medicine) conducted on 243 marijuana smokers over an 8-year period reported the following:
"Findings from the longterm study of heavy, habitual marijuana smokers argue against the concept that
continuing heavy use of marijuana is a significant risk factor for the development of chronic lung
disease." "Neither the continuing nor the intermittent marijuana smokers exhibited any significantly
different rates of decline in lung function as compared with those individuals who never smoked
marijuana." The study concluded: "No differences were noted between even quite heavy
marijuana smoking and nonsmoking of marijuana."
Marijuana does not cause serious health problems like those caused by tobacco or alcohol (e.g., strong
addiction, cancer, heart problems, birth defects, emphysema, liver damage, etc.). Death from a marijuana
overdose is impossible.
In all of world history, there has never been a single human death attributed to a health problem caused
by marijuana.
MARIJUANA MYTHS
Myth: Today's marijuana is more potent and more harmful than it was many years ago.
Fact: There is no medical evidence that shows high-potency marijuana is more harmful than low-potency
marijuana.
Marijuana is literally one of the least toxic substances known. High-potency marijuana is actually
preferable because less is of it consumed to obtain the desired effect; thereby reducing the amount of
smoke that enters the lungs and lowering the risk of any respiratory health hazards. Claiming that highpotency
marijuana is more harmful than lowpotency marijuana is like claiming wine is more harmful than
beer.
Myth: Smoking marijuana can cause cancer and serious lung damage.
Fact: There chance of contracting cancer from smoking marijuana is minuscule. Tobacco smokers
typically smoke 20+ cigarettes every day for decades, but virtually nobody smokes marijuana in the
quantity and frequency required to cause cancer. A 1997 UCLA study (see page 9) concluded that even
prolonged and heavy marijuana smoking causes no serious lung damage. Cancer risks from common
foods (meat, salt, dairy products) far exceed any cancer risk posed by smoking marijuana. Respiratory
health hazards and cancer risks can be totally eliminated by ingesting marijuana in
baked foods.
Myth: Marijuana contains over 400 chemicals, thus proving that marijuana is dangerous.
Fact: Coffee contains 1,500 chemicals. Rat poison contains only 30 chemicals. Many vegetables contain
cancer-causing chemicals. There is no correlation between the number of chemicals a substance contains
and its toxicity.
Prohibitionists often cite this misleading statistic to make marijuana appear dangerous.
Myth: Marijuana is a gateway drug--it leads to harder drugs.
Fact: The U.S. government's own statistics show that over 75 percent of all Americans who use
marijuana never use harder drugs. The gateway-drug theory is derived by using blatantly-flawed logic.
Using such blatantly-flawed logic, alcohol should be considered the gateway drug because most cocaine
and heroin addicts began their drug use with beer or wine--not marijuana.
Myth: Marijuana is addicting.
Fact: Marijuana is not physically addicting. Medical studies rank marijuana as less habit forming than
caffeine. The legal drugs of tobacco (nicotine) and alcohol can be as addicting as heroin or cocaine, but
marijuana is one of the least habit forming substances known.
Myth: Marijuana use impairs learning ability.
112
Fact: A 1996 U.S. government study claims that heavy marijuana use may impair learning ability. The
key words are heavy use and may. This claim is based on studying people who use marijuana daily--a
sample that represents less than 1 percent of all marijuana users. This study concluded: 1) Learning
impairments cited were subtle, minimal, and may be temporary. In other words, there is little evidence
that such learning impairments even exist. 2) Long-term memory was not affected by heavy marijuana
use. 3) Casual marijuana users showed no signs of impaired learning. 4) Heavy
alcohol use was cited as being more detrimental to the thought and learning process than heavy
marijuana use.
Myth: Marijuana is a significant cause of emergency room admissions.
Fact: The U.S. government reports that marijuana-related emergency room episodes are increasing. The
government counts an emergency room admission as a marijuana-related episode if the word marijuana
appears anywhere in the medical record. If a patient tests positive for marijuana because he/she used
marijuana several days before the incident occurred, if a drunk driver admits he/she also smoked some
marijuana, or if anyone involved in the incident merely possessed marijuana, the government counts the
emergency room admission as a "marijuana-related episode." Less than 0.2% of all emergency room
admissions are "marijuana related." This so-called marijuana-causes-emergencies
statistic was carefully crafted by the government to make marijuana appear dangerous.
MERRY-GO ROUND
I have been watching all this banter back and forth on E-mail about how wonderful the Constitution and
Bill of Rights are. I have seen people quoting parts of it and how it protects them. Many people sit on
the merry-go-round and continually argue that it is turning. They say they can prove it, like the flat
world people of the 14th Century, they can prove the world is flat. I got off the merry-go round around
1984. Much to my surprise the merry-go-round was standing still. Now I was going around, as the rest
of government was, while the people on the merry-go round thought that government was standing still
and they were moving. This just proved that those on the merry-go round were
absolutely wrong. They were standing still and the world was revolving, not them. What I am trying to
prove here is that no one wants to get off and research correctly that the Constitution has been an utter
fraud from the beginning and so has the Bill of Rights.
I said I was not going to do this but the Almighty says I have to keep trying. At least no one, when
finding out the truth, can say "I never told you so." So with that, I am going to give you three cases that
prove beyond a shadow of doubt that these merry-go-rounders are all wrong. Howard Griswold, Big
Byrd, Dave DeRiemer and only a hand full of others are also, "off the merry-go-round" as they too have
read these cases and agree. All the e-mail that I see that starts by showing the Bill of Rights are designed
to protect the people in the States, I hit the delete key. I am waiting for a good
e-mail to come over that does not say that. As a result, all the e-mail I get, extolling the constitution or
the Bill of Rights gets the delete key right away. It takes up too much of my time reading falsehoods. I
CAPITALIZE these words for effect in the cases.
FIRST CASE:
Supreme Court of United States--Constitutional law, John Barron v The
Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 7 Peters 243.
This defendant had his property taken by the State of Maryland and he plead the fifth amendment. The
court lacked jurisdiction because the 5th did not apply to a state man, only to a United States man. And,
the property was not within the United States or part of it's land ceded to the United States by
Maryland. Therefore, the man could not use any of the amendments to the separate United States
Constitution because it did not apply.
THE COURT STATED: "The provision in the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United States,
declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, is intended
113
solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the government of the United States, AND IS NOT
APPLICABLE TO THE LEGISLATION OF THE STATES. The Constitution was ordained and
established BY THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, FOR THEMSELVES, FOR THEIR OWN
GOVERNMENT, AND NOT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE INDIVIDUAL STATES. Each
State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such
limitations and restrictions on the powers of ITS PARTICULAR government as its judgments dictated.
The people of the United States FRAMED SUCH A GOVERNMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES as
THEY supposed best adapted TO THEIR situation, and best calculated TO PROMOTE THEIR
INTERESTS. The powers conferred on this government were to be EXERCISED BY ITSELF; and the
limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally and necessarily applicable TO THE
GOVERNMENT CREATED BY THAT INSTRUMENT. They are limitations of power granted in the
instrument itself, NOT OF DISTINCT GOVERNMENTS FRAMED BY DIFFERENT PERSONS
AND FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSES. IF THESE PROPOSITIONS BE CORRECT, THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT must be understood AS RESTRAINING THE POWER OF THE GENERAL
GOVERNMENT, NOT AS APPLICABLE TO THE STATES.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Court of Appeals for the
Western Shore of Maryland, and was argued by counsel; on consideration whereof, it is the opinion of
this court that there is no repugnancy between the several acts of the General Assembly of Maryland,
given in evidence by the defendants at trial of this cause in the court of that State, and the Constitution
of the United States; whereupon, it is ordered and adjudged by this court that this writ of error be, and
the same is hereby dismissed for the want of jurisdiction.
SECOND CASE:
Hepburn and Dundas v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch 445
This was a case where a citizen of the District of Columbia (United States) tried to maintain an action in
a Circuit Court for the Virginia district against a Virginia citizen.
THE COURT STATED AND HELD: "A citizen of the District of Columbia CANNOT maintain an
action against a citizen of Virginia, in the circuit court for the Virginia district. A citizen of the District of
Columbia IS NOT A CITIZEN OF A STATE, within the meaning of the constitution. * * *
It is contended that a citizen of the District of Columbia is a citizen of a state. It is said that he is a
citizen of the United States, and not being a citizen of the same state with the defendant, he must be a
citizen of a different state. But there may be a citizen of the United States who is NOT a citizen OF
ANY ONE OF THE STATES. The expression "a citizen of a state," has a constitutional meaning. The
states ARE NOT absolutely sovereigns, but (if I may use the expression) they are DEMISOVEREIGNS.
the word state has a meaning PECULIAR to the United States. It means a CERTAIN
POLITICAL SOCIETY FORMING A CONSTITUENT PART OF THE UNION.
Even if the constitution of the United States authorizes a more enlarged jurisdiction than the judiciary
act of 1789 has given, yet the court CAN TAKE NO JURISDICTION WHICH IS NOT GIVEN BY
THE ACT. I, therefore, call for the law which gives a jurisdiction in this case.
The court goes into great detail using just about all the Bill of Rights and then makes the
following conclusion.
Other passages from the constitution have been cited by the plaintiffs to show that the term state is
sometimes used in its more enlarged sense. But on examining the passages quoted, they do not prove
what was shown by them. It is true that as citizens of the United States, and if that PARTICULAR
DISTRICT which is subject to the jurisdiction of Congress, it is extraordinary that the courts of the
United States, which ARE OPEN TO ALIENS, and to the citizens of every state of the union, should be
closed upon them. BUT THIS IS A SUBJECT FOR LEGISLATIVE, NOT FOR JUDICIAL
CONSIDERATION. The opinion to be certified to the circuit court is, THAT THIS COURT HAS NO
JURISDICTION IN THE CASE."
After completely reading the first case and solidify in your brain cells that the court stated the
114
Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not for the people in the states, this second case, when read in its
entirety squares with the first case and supports the conclusion that the Constitution and the Bill of
Rights never was yours in the first place. Now for the kicker, clincher, hydrogen bomb, torpedo,
whatever you want to call it, that finalizes the above two cases and sets it in
stone that the Constitution and Bill of Rights YOU claim to be your godsend to the protection of God
given Rights was a fraud from he very beginning is:
THIRD CASE
Padleford, Fay & Co. v. The Mayor, City of Savanna, 14 Ga 438.
This involved a sales tax case in 1854 by a company who refused to pay a sales tax after he collected it
and brought an action. The opening opinion of the Supreme court judge states it quite clearly what the
question is about. Then I will quote a paragraph or two and the final opinion only, since this case is 82
pages long. Don't read it and you are still on the merry-go-round and will never know the truth.
THE COURT: "But a single question is presented for decision in this case; and that is, whether the
Ordinance of the City Council of Savanna violates the Constitution of the United States. The Plaintiffs in
error insists that it violates two of the provisions of theConstitution---that which declares that Congress
shall have power "To regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States"; and that
which declares that "No State shall, without consent of the Congress, lay any imposts on duties or
exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its Inspection Laws."
Now it must be manifest to any one, on a little reflection, that if the United States' Courts have power
over the State Courts, they have power over State laws--power over operation of those Laws, within
the territory of the States—power to nullify EVERY ACT OF THE STATES. Was this the intention of
the makers of the Constitution--these very States?
The conclusion is, * * *the Supreme Court of the United States has no jurisdiction over the Supreme
Court of Georgia; and cannot, therefore give it an order, or make for it a PRECEDENT. * * * The
consumer, therefore, can waive his right to object to this ordinance, on the score of its being void; and
HE DOES THIS WHEN HE PAYS THE TAX IT IMPOSES UPON HIM. It is time enough to hold the
Law, made under the authority of the State, to be a violation of the Constitution, when it is complained
of by somebody that it injures. It is too soon to do this, when the complaint is made by one that it does
not injure, and one, who, if the complaint be allowed, will be enabled to keep what, in justice and equity,
he has no right to. But, indeed, NO PRIVATE PERSON HAS A RIGHT
TO COMPLAIN, BY SUIT IN COURT, ON THE GROUND OF A BREACH OF THE
CONSTITUTION. The Constitution, it is true, is a COMPACT, BUT HE [the private man people, that's
you.] IS NOT A PARTY TO IT. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain. If they do, they
are entitled to REDRESS. [Informer: How many thought YOU had REDRESS? B.S., you never had
any]. Or they may waive their right to complain. If they do, the right stands waived. * * * And this
brings me to my general conclusion, which is, that the judgment of the Court below,
ought to be affirmed."
The private man flat out lost. Now, how many still want to stay on the merry-go-round and moan,
complain and argue that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are still yours? There are a few of us that
have gotten off the merry-go-round , that is not really moving, long ago. We only laugh now at the
ignorance of those on the merry-go-round, because we tried to get those on the merry-go-round, that
the criminal government created so those could take the ride of their life, standing still on the merry-goround
and getting nowhere. That is why I hit the delete button when I see the drivel and ranting and
ravings of a lunatic. Yes people, YOU are considered one of lunacy by the courts when you bring up the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Don't believe me, look up the word in the King's Dictionary (Black's
Law) and in Words and Phrases. I am feeling sorry for those poor lost souls whose ignorance will keep
them in chains by not giving up their egos. They want to be right, because they can't see the light, and
don't want to admit to their followers that they may have been wrong. They are clinging to a thought
process that was created by the best criminals the taxpayer could afford and refuse to get off the merry-
115
go-round.
The United States of America is still the greatest nation on the face of the earth but our leadership role is
being undermined by our actions. America is tragically becoming a “Nation of Hypocrites”.
How is this so? What are we doing that is casting a dark shadow upon ‘Old Glory’?Following are just a
few examples of American hypocrisy:
1. We condemn Brazil for clear-cutting the rain forests of the Amazon yet we are clear-cutting the last
remnants of our ancient forests.
2. We promote ourselves as the world’s leader in bringing peace to the world yet we are constantly
rattling sabers and talking of war.
3. We tell the world that we care about the health of children yet we are destroying the health of our
own children by stuffing them with junk food and exposing them to a mind-boggling soup of health
destroying chemicals.
4. We act as if we care about the humane treatment of animals yet we torture millions upon millions of
animals in factory farms.
5. We say that we care about the education of our children yet we warehouse them under inhumane
conditions in windowless schools and then ply them with drugs to control them.
6. We act as if we care about food for the hungry yet instead of providing the poor and hungry with
wholesome and nutritious food we hand out food stamps with which they can purchase shopping carts
loaded with junk food in fancy packaging.
7. We condemn totalitarian nations for their use and abuse of the death penalty yet we execute more
innocent people than the rest of the so-called ‘Free World’ combined.
8. We spend billions to fight a ‘War on Drugs’ and destroy the lives of tens of thousands of our nation’s
youth by throwing them in prison for minor infractions yet thousands of the so-called drug fighters are
themselves addicted to nicotine, alcohol, and prescription drugs.
9. We promote our nation as “America the Beautiful” yet we are in the process of bulldozing and
destroying what little is left of the “America the Beautiful” as first described by our founding fathers and
mothers.
Is it any wonder then that the citizens of other nations feel that they cannot trust us to be honest and
truthful in our dealings with them?
Is it any wonder then that some people look down upon us rather than respect us?
Our actions betray our words. We must set the example for the rest of the world to follow. We can no
longer demand that they ‘do as we say, not as we do’.
The New Freedom Initiative
New Freedom Act Passes in November 2004
Its the "New Freedom", Folks!
Declaration of Refusal to Comply - Please Sign
It is already happening in Illinois
Illinois must be a test state.
While people there are getting ready to move out of state, the federal government is moving to
institute the program in all states.
"If ever there existed a reason for citizens to rise up against the governing elite, this is such a cause. It is
imperative that the citizens of this state recognize both the folly and offensive nature of this program."
- M. Dennis Paul, PhD
Forced mental health evaluations
Here we go again. This is NOT about freedom! Here comes the federal government seeking to "help"
people again. This time they plan to force every American into mandatory mental health evaluations
starting with school children and their teachers - an easy-access population controlled by funding-hungry
school administrators.
You who are going through CPS trauma and family-interference should know better than anyone that a
116
mandated, forced mental health evaluation is an intrusive, distressing process. It is a violation of your
right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment.
This "New Freedom" is another violation of the Tenth Amendment which states, "The powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people." This is the latest in a long line of violations. The federal
government unconstitutionally interferes with child welfare, health care, education and so much more.
Just like many other laws Bush signed, the "New Freedom Initiative" is deceptively named. This is not
for more freedom. It is for violations of our freedoms and our rights to decline intrusive health
evaluations. Do you realize in 2003 Bush signed a law called "Keeping Children and Families Safe" that
renewed child welfare funding and included a new clause allowing caseworkers to intrude on your
formerly private medical records? Do you think your children and families are safer now?
Do you realize this followed the new medical "privacy" act, HIPPA, that keeps your closest relatives
from being able to ask your doctor how you're doing, but allows all HHS employees full access to your
records? Does this feel like medical record privacy to you?
Do you think the Patriot Act and its violation of Constitutional Rights was something real patriots would
approve of? So who does this "New Freedom" benefit? Drug company owners, that's who. They'll be
dishing out more psychotropic drugs than ever. It will also help the fascists who are controlling our
government to keep our dissidents and independent thinkers under chemical restraints just like they've
done to so many children in foster incarceration facilities. It will help them break down the will and
autonomy of the population, forcing more beautiful souls to become mindless, over-medicated sheep.
People who truly need mental health services have a way of identifying themselves and they are already
getting services. Forced mental health evaluations and forced medications are not needed for every child
and adult in the US population. This is about government control, not about "helping" and not about
freedom.
Public schools to be used as children's mental health centers.
"Schools are where children spend most of each day. While schools are primarily concerned with
education, mental health is essential to learning as well as to social and emotional development. Because
of this important interplay between emotional health and school success, schools must be partners in the
mental health care of our children."
- From the Final Report of the New Freedom Commission
By starting this intrusive scheme in public schools a new generation of children will become accustomed
and acclimated to the government's new role of forced mental health "services"... just like most young
Americans today think CPS is a normal part of life even though the system started less than forty years
ago. Adults will be forced into evaluations too
Imagine a world where you're forced to get a mental health evaluation whenever you need medical help
of any kind, when you're in need of temporary shelter, or when you apply for senior housing. Imagine a
world where government doctors will decide to force unwanted medications on you.
Its coming. Here's what the Final Report of the New Freedom Commission suggests:
"The Commission supports implementing systematic screening procedures to identify mental health and
substance use problems and treatment needs in all settings in which children, youth, adults, or older
adults are at high risk for mental illnesses or in settings in which a high occurrence of co-occurring
mental and substance use disorders exists. In addition to specialty mental health and substance abuse
treatment settings, screening for co-occurring disorders should
be implemented when an individual enters the juvenile or criminal justice systems, child welfare system,
homeless shelters, hospitals, senior housing, long-term care facilities, nursing homes, and other settings
where populations are at high risk. Screening should also occur periodically after an individual enters
any of these facilities."
"When mental health problems are identified, children, youth, adults, and older adults should be linked
with appropriate services, supports, or diversion programs. Additionally, given the high incidence of
117
substance use disorders among parents of children in the child welfare system, where indicated, these
parents should be screened for cooccurring disorders and linked with appropriate treatment and
supports."
- From the Final Report of the New Freedom Commission
It sounds like CPS for everyone!
Can you imagine not being able to get into senior housing just because you refuse a mental health
evaluation or refuse to take mis-prescribed meds?
Can you imagine going to the hospital for back surgery and being forced to have a psychological
evaluation while you're there?
These evaluations are not just for the mentally ill. They will be forced on everyone, one way or another.
As time goes by the control-freaks in the government will find more and more ways to force these
evaluations and medications, to oppress and enslave us.
The "New Freedom"
Expressing the sense of Congress that Congress should adopt and implement the goals and
recommendations provided by the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health through
legislation... (Introduced in House)
HCON 292 IH
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. CON. RES. 292
Expressing the sense of Congress that Congress should adopt and implement the goals and
recommendations provided by the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health through
legislation or other appropriate action to help ensure affordable, accessible, and high quality mental
health care for all Americans.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
October 2, 2003
Mrs. NAPOLITANO submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of Congress that Congress should adopt and implement the goals and
recommendations provided by the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health through
legislation or other appropriate action to help ensure affordable, accessible, and high quality mental
health care for all Americans.
Whereas the National Institute of Mental Health has found that 22.1 percent of Americans ages 18 and
older suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder each year;
Whereas the National Institute of Mental Health has found that 4 of the 10 leading causes of disability in
the United States are mental disorders; Whereas approximately 90 percent of the 30,000 people who
commit suicide in the United States every year have a diagnosable mental disorder;
Whereas the President created the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health on April 29, 2002 to
study the mental health service delivery system and make recommendations to enable people with
serious mental illness to live, work, learn, and participate fully in their communities;
Whereas the Commission identified 6 goals to begin transforming mental health care in America: (1) to
help all Americans understand that mental health is essential to overall health; (2) to make mental health
care consumer and family driven; (3) to eliminate disparities in mental health services; (4) to make early
mental illness screening, assessment, and referral to services common practice; (5) to ensure delivery of
excellent mental health care and
acceleration of mental illness research; and (6) to use technology to access mental health care and
information;
118
Whereas the Commission has made a number of recommendations to Congress to implement its goals;
Whereas the Commission has recommended that to implement its first goal of helping Americans
understand that mental health is essential to overall health, Congress should address mental health with
the same urgency as physical health, as well as develop and advance a national strategy for suicide
prevention and a national campaign aimed at reducing the stigma attached to seeking mental health care;
Whereas the Commission has recommended that to implement its second goal of making mental health
care consumer and family driven, Congress should support the practice of developing an individualized
plan of care for every individual with a serious mental illness, encourage mental health care providers to
involve consumers and families in the mental health system and the path toward recovery, take action to
realign relevant Federal programs to improve consumer access and accountability for mental health
services, support the States in developing extensive, coordinated mental health systems, and encourage
the protection and enhancement of the rights of people with mental illness;
Whereas the Commission has recommended that to implement its third goal of eliminating disparities in
mental health services, Congress should support improved access to quality care in rural and
geographically remote areas and ensure
that mental health care providers are trained to work effectively with culturally diverse populations;
Whereas the Commission has recommended that to implement its fourth goal of making early screening,
assessment, and treatment of mental illness a common practice, Congress should help promote children's
mental health by improving and expanding school mental health programs, encouraging screenings for
mental disorders (including cooccurring substance use disorders) in primary health care, and supporting
appropriate referral to treatment and integrated treatment strategies;
Whereas the Commission has recommended that to implement its fifth goal of ensuring the delivery of
excellent mental health care and the acceleration of mental illness research, Congress should encourage
the acceleration of research to promote recovery, cures, and prevention, the advance of evidence-based
practices using dissemination and demonstration projects, the improvement and expansion of the
workforce which provides these services, and the development of a base of knowledge in understudied
areas;
Whereas the Commission has recommended that to implement its sixth goal of using technology to
access mental health care and information, Congress should encourage the use of health technology and
telehealth to improve access and coordination of mental health care, particularly for Americans in remote
areas or in underserved populations, and the development and implementation of integrated electronic
health records;
Whereas these goals are interrelated and must be pursued together as quickly as possible: Now,
therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of
Congress that Congress should act immediately to adopt and implement the goals and recommendations
highlighted in the final report of the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health,
`Achieving the Promise: Transforming Mental Health Care in
America' through legislation or other appropriate action to help ensure affordable, accessible, and high
quality mental health care for all Americans.
Shut Up and Take Your Drugs - writer Mary Starrett calls the New Freedom Initiative one of the
president's "worst civil and human rights abuses to date".
Mental Health and World Citizenship by Dr. Dennis Cuddy
Mind Freedom - united action for human rights in mental health.
Psychiatry and the Schools: Mental Hygiene in the 21st Century by Dr. John Breeding
The Truth About Drug Companies - corruption in the pharmaceutical drug industry.
This last site is the official government website for "The President's New Freedom Commission on
Mental Health"...
but proceed with caution. I've tried to access the site three times now. Each time it crashed my Internet
Explorer. No apparent damage done, but it leads me to wonder whether they want people to get this
information or not.
119
http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov/
Notice to Citizens IRS
United States in default... it's the Law!
Public Judicial Notice, Public Judicial Notice #2, and Public Judicial
Notice #3 were published in this public forum upon this WebSite for
twenty (20) consecutive days. Each has also been published in accordance
with law in Veritas National Newspaper, The Round Valley Paper, and
many other publications throughout the United States of America. The law
requires they be published for only 3 consecutive days or issues in the
media in which they are printed. The United States including but not
limited to the Department of the Treasury, and Internal Revenue Service
has defaulted failing to rebut any allegations of fact in any of these Public
Judicial Notices within the twenty days allotted. According to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and attending State rules, "He who remains
silent consents." In accordance with State and Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure the allegations of fact in each of these Public Judicial Notices
are now PRESUMED FACT. All Citizens may now act in accordance with
these FACTS.
Proof of service is registered on the WebSite server and in the captured files of the Statistics for the
WebSite program which has registered the download of this entire WebSite by United States government
computers including, but not limited to, The White House, the Department of the Treasury, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, the United States Postal Service, the Internal Revenue Service, the Bureau of
Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, the Pentagon, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA), United States Military installations across the nation, and EVERY United States National
Laboratory including, but not limited to, Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, Berkeley, and etc.
Public Judicial Notice
This memorandum will be construed to comply with provisions necessary to establish presumed
fact (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and attending State rules) should interested parties fail to
rebut any given allegation or matter of law addressed herein. The position will be construed as
adequate to meet requirements of judicial notice, thus preserving fundamental law. Matters
addressed herein, if not rebutted, will be construed to have general application. A true and correct
copy of this Public Notice is on file with and available for inspection at the newspaper responsible
for publishing the instrument as legal notice. The memorandum addresses the character of the
Internal Revenue Service and other agencies of the Department of the Treasury, and legal
application of the Internal Revenue Code.
IRS Identity & Principal of Interest
In 1953, the Internal Revenue Service was created by the stroke of a pen when the Secretary of the
Treasury changed the name of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (T.O. No. 150-29, G.M. Humphrey,
Secretary of the Treasury, July 9, 1953). However, no congressional or presidential authorization
for making this change has been located, so the source of authority had to originate elsewhere.
Research to which IRS officials have acquiesced suggests that the Secretary exercised his authority
as trustee of Puerto Rico Trust #62 (Internal Revenue) (see 31 USC § 1321), and as will be
demonstrated, the Secretary does, in fact, operate as Secretary of the Treasury, Puerto Rico.
The solid link between the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of the Treasury, Puerto
Rico, was first published in the September 1995 issue of Veritas Magazine, based on research by
William Cooper and Wayne Bentson, both of Arizona. In October, a criminal complaint was filed
in the office of W. A. Drew Edmondson, attorney general for Oklahoma, against an Enid-based
120
revenue officer, and in the time since, IRS principals have failed to refute the allegation that IRS is
an agency of the Department of Treasury, Puerto Rico. In November, criminal complaints were
filed simultaneously with the grand jury for the United States district court for the District of
Northern Oklahoma, Tulsa, and the office of Attorney General Edmondson, and both the office of
the United States Attorney and IRS principals have yet to rebut the allegations in that instance
(UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. Kenney F. Moore, et al, 95 CR-129C).
By consulting the index for Chapter 3, Title 31 of the United States Code, one finds that IRS and
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms are not listed as agencies of the United States
Department of the Treasury. The fact that Congress never created a “Bureau of Internal Revenue”
is confirmed by publication in the Federal Register at 36 F.R. 849-890 [C.B. 1971 - 1,698], 36 F.R.
11946 [C.B. 1971 - 2,577], and 37 F.R. 489-490; and in Internal Revenue Manual 1100 at 1111.2.
Implications are condemning both to IRS and third parties who knowingly participate in
IRS-initiated scams: No legitimate authority resides in or emanates from an office which was not
legitimately created and/or ordained either by state or national constitutions or by legislative
enactment. See variously, United States v. Germane, 99 U.S. 508 (1879), Norton v. Shelby County,
118 U.S. 425, 441, 6 S.Ct. 1121 (1866), etc., dating to Pope v. Commissioner, 138 F.2d 1006, 1009
(6th Cir. 1943); where the state is concerned, the most recent corresponding decision was State v.
Pinckney, 276 N.W.2d 433, 436 (Iowa 1979).
Another direct evidence of the fraud is found at 27 CFR § 1, which prescribes basic requirements
for securing permits under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act. The problem here is that
Congress promulgated the Act in 1935, and the same year, the United States Supreme Court
declared the Act unconstitutional. Administration of the Act was subsequently moved offshore to
Puerto Rico, along with the Federal Alcohol Administration, and operation eventually merged
with the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Puerto Rico, which until 1938, along with the Bureau of
Internal Revenue, Philippines, created by the Philippines provisional government via Philippines
Trust #2 (internal revenue) (see 31 USC § 1321 for listing of Philippines Trust #2 (internal
revenue)), administered the China Trade Act (licensing & revenue collection relating to opium,
cocaine & citric wines). This line will be resumed after examining additional evidences concerning
IRS and Commissioner of Internal Revenue authority.
Further verification that IRS does not have lawful authority in the several States is found in the
Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules, beginning on page 751 of the 1995 Index volume to the
Code of Federal Regulations. It will be found that there are no regulations supportive of 26 USC
§§ 7621, 7801, 7802 & 7803 (these statute listings are absent from the table). In other words, no
regulations have been published in the Federal Register, extending authority to the several States
and the population at large, (1) to establish revenue districts within the several States, (2)
extending authority of the Department of the Treasury [Puerto Rico] to the several States, (3)
giving authority to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and assistants within the several States,
or (4) extending authority of any other Department of Treasury personnel to the several States.
Authority of the Internal Revenue Service, via the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, is
convoluted in regulations, but makes an amount of sense by citing various regulations pertaining
to the Service and application of the Commissioner’s authority. General procedural rules at 26
CFR § 601.101(a) provide a beginning-point:
(a) General. The Internal Revenue Service is a bureau of the Department of the Treasury
under the immediate direction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The
Commissioner has general superintendence of the assessment and collection of all taxes
imposed by any law providing internal revenue. The Internal Revenue Service is the
agency by which these functions are performed...
The fact that there are no regulations extending Commissioner of Internal Revenue, or
Department of the Treasury authority to the several States (26 USC § 7802(a)), has greater clarity
in the light of the general merging of functions between IRS and other agencies presently attached
121
to the Department of the Treasury. The Commissioner is given responsibility for issuing rules and
regulations for the Code at 26 CFR § 301.7805-1, with approval of the Secretary, but there are no
cites of authority for this CFR subpart, whether Treasury Order, publication in the Federal
Register, or even statute cite. In other words, there is no actual or effective delegation which vests
the Commissioner with significant independent authority which might be conveyed to IRS, BATF,
Customs or any other Department of the Treasury agency with respect to powers extending to or
affecting the several States and the population at large.
The link between IRS and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is significant as the tie
with the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Department of the Treasury, Puerto Rico, is through this
door. Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1940, Section 2, made the following change:
§ 2. Federal Alcohol Administration The Federal Alcohol Administration, the offices of the members
thereof, and the office of the Administrator are abolished, and their function shall be administered under
the direction and supervision of the Secretary of the Treasury through the Bureau of Internal Revenue in
the Department of the Treasury.
Again, the Federal Alcohol Administration Act of 1935 was declared unconstitutional in 1935, and
the operation thereafter transferred off shore to Puerto Rico. The name of the Bureau of Internal
Revenue was changed to the Internal Revenue Service in 1953 (cite above), then the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, a division of the Internal Revenue Service, was seemingly
separated from IRS (T.O. 120-01, June 6, 1972). In relevant part, the order reads as follows:
1. The purpose of this order is to transfer, as specified herein, the functions, powers and
duties of the Internal Revenue Service arising under law relating to Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives including the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms division of the
Internal Revenue Service, to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms herein after
referred to as the Bureau which is hereby established. The Bureau shall be headed by the
Director of the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms herein referred to as the Director... 2.
The Director shall perform the functions, exercise the powers and carry out the duties of
the Secretary and the administration and the enforcement of the following provisions of
law: A. Chapters 51 and 52 and 53 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and Section
7652 and 7653 of such code insofar as they relate to the commodity subject to tax under
such chapters. B. Chapter 61 to 80 inclusive to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954
insofar as they relate to activities administered and enforced with respect to chapters 51,
52, 53. (emphasis added)
Transfer of functions and duties of IRS to BATF relative to Internal Revenue Code Subtitle F
(chapters 61 to 80) is important where the instant matter is concerned as the only regulations
published in the Federal Register applicable to the several States are under 27 CFR, Part 70 and
other parts of this title relating exclusively to alcohol, tobacco and firearms matters. However, the
charade doesn’t end there. In Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1965 (5 USC § 903), the original
Bureau of Customs, created by Act of Congress in 1895, was abolished and merged under the
Secretary of the Treasury.
In a Treasury Order published in the Federal Register of December 15, 1976, the Secretary of the
Treasury used something of a slight of hand to confuse matters more by determining, “The term
Director, Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms has been replaced with the term Internal Revenue
Service.”
Obviously, it is impossible to replace a person with a thing when it comes to administrative
responsibility. However, the order demonstrates that IRS and BATF are one and the same, merely
operating with interchangeable hats. Therefore, definitions and designations applicable to one are
applicable to the other.
In definitions at 27 CFR § 250.11, the following provisions are found:
Revenue Agent. Any duly authorized Commonwealth Internal Revenue Agent of the
Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico. Secretary. The Secretary of the Treasury of
122
Puerto Rico. Secretary or his delegate. The Secretary or any officer or employee of the
Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico duly authorized by the Secretary to perform
the function mentioned or described in this part.
In the absence of any other definition describing revenue officers and agents, the Secretary, or the
Department of the Treasury, definitions above are uniformly applicable to all IRS and BATF
departments, functions and personnel. In fact, it will be found that even petroleum tax prescribed
in Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code applies only to United States territorial jurisdiction
exclusive of the several States and to imported petroleum. BATF has authority only with respect to
firearms, munitions, etc., produced outside the several States and the first sale of imports.
The two delegations of authority to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue thus far located tend to
reinforce conclusions set out above. Treasury Department Order No. 150-42, dated July 27, 1956,
appearing in at 21 Fed. Reg. 5852, specifies the following:
The Commissioner shall, to the extent of the authority vested in him, provide for the
administration of United States internal revenue laws in the Panama Canal Zone,
Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
On February 27, 1986 (51 Fed. Reg. 9571), Treasury Department Order No. 150-01 specified the
following:
The Commissioner shall, to the extent of authority otherwise vested in him, provide for
the administration of the United States internal revenue laws in the U.S. Territories and
insular possessions and other authorized areas of the world.
To date only three statutes in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as currently amended, have been
located that specifically reference the several States, exclusive of the federal States (District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, etc.): 26 USC §§ 5272(b), 5362(c) & 7462. The
first two provide certain exemptions to bond and import tax requirements relating to imported
distilled spirits for governments of the several States and their respective political subdivisions,
and the last provides that reports published by the United States Tax Court will constitute
evidence of the reports in courts of the United States and the several States. None of the three
statutes extend assessment or collections authority for IRS or BATF within the several States.
IRS is contracted to provide collection services for the Agency for International Development, and
case law demonstrates that the true principals of interest are the International Monetary Fund and
the World Bank (Bank of the United States v. Planters Bank of Georgia, 6 L.Ed (Wheat) 244; U.S.
v. Burr, 309 U.S. 242; see 22 USCA § 286, et seq.). In other words, IRS seemingly provides
collection services for undisclosed foreign principals rather than collecting internal revenue for the
benefit of constitutional United States government operation. To date, IRS principals have failed
to dispute the published Cooper/Bentson allegation that the agency, via these foreign principals,
funded the enormous tank and military truck factory on the Kama River, Russia.
The Internal Revenue Service, a foreign entity with respect to the several States, is not registered
to do business in the several States. 2. Preservation of Due Process Rights
The Internal Revenue Service has for years been protected by statutory courts both of the United
States and the several States, with the latter operating in the framework of adopted uniform laws
which ascribe a federal character to the several States. Both operate under the presumption of
Congress’ Article IV jurisdiction within the geographical United States (the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, etc.), both accommodate private international law under exclusively United States
treaties on private international law, and both operate in the framework of admiralty rules to
impose Civil Law (see both majority & dissenting opinions variously, Bennis v. Michigan, U.S.
Supreme Court No. 94-8729, March 4, 1996) , which is repugnant to both state and national
constitutions (see authority of Department of Justice as representative of the “Central Authority”
established by U.S. treaties on private international law at 28 CFR § 0.49; also, “conflict of law” as
a subcategory to “statutes” in American Jurisprudence). However, this house of cards will shortly
fall as Cooperative Federalism, known as Corporatism well into the 1930s, has been thoroughly
123
documented and is rapidly being exposed via state and United States appellate courts and in
public forum.
In reality, the Internal Revenue Code preserves due process rights, but the statute has been
dormant until recently:
[Sec. 7804(b)] (b) PRESERVATION OF EXISTING RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. --
Nothing in Reorganization Plan Numbered 26 of 1950 or Reorganization Plan
Numbered 1 of 1952 shall be considered to impair any right or remedy, including trial
by jury, to recover any internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally
assessed or collected, or any penalty claimed to have been collected without authority,
or any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully collected under
the internal revenue laws. For the purpose of any action to recover any such tax,
penalty, or sum, all statutes, rules, and regulations referring to the collector of internal
revenue, the principal officer for the internal revenue district, or the Secretary, shall be
deemed to refer to the officer whose act or acts referred to in the preceding sentence
gave rise to such action. The venue of any such action shall be the same as under
existing law.
The reorganization plans of 1950 & 1952 were implemented via the Internal Revenue Code of
1954, Volume 68A of the Statutes at Large, and codified as title 26 of the United States Code.
Savings statutes have been in place since the beginning, but generally not understood by the
general population or the legal profession. The statute set out above is easier to comprehend when
references are consolidated. Further, the dependent clause “including trial by jury” relates to a
constitutionally-assured right, not a remedy, so it should be moved to the proper location in the
sentence. Finally, the matter of venue is important as “existing law” is constitutional and common
law indigenous to the several States. In the absence of legitimate federal law which extends to the
several States, those who operate under color of law, engage in oppression, extortion, etc., are
subject to the foundation law of the States. Venue is determined by the law of legislative
jurisdiction.
Citing “including trial by jury” preserves the full slate of due process rights included in Fourth,
Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution for the united States of
America and corresponding provisions in constitutions of the several States. The example
represents the class.
Additionally, note that, (1) actions may issue against bogus assessments as well as collections, and
(2) § 7804(b), unlike § 7433, does not presume that the complaining party is a “taxpayer”. Finally,
there is 26 CFR, Part 1 regulatory support for § 7804 where there are no regulations published in
the Federal Register in support of § 7433 (see Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules, beginning
on page 751 of the Index volume to the Code of Federal Regulations). Therefore, § 7804(b)
preserves rights and determines the nature of civil actions for remedies in the several States. When
straightened out, applicable portions of § 7804(b) read as follows:
Nothing in [the Internal Revenue Code] shall be considered to impair any right, [including trial by
jury], or remedy, to recover any internal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or
illegally assessed or collected ... The venue of any such action shall be the same as under existing law.
The necessity of due process is implicitly preserved by 28 USC § 2463, which stipulates that any
seizure under United States revenue laws will be deemed in the custody of the law and subject
solely to disposition of courts of the United States with proper jurisdiction. In other words, even if
IRS had legitimate authority in the several States, the agency would of necessity have to file a civil
or criminal complaint prior to garnishment, seizure or any other action adversely affecting the life,
liberty or property of any given person, whether a Fourteenth Amendment citizen-subject of the
United States or a Citizen principal of one of the several States. Due process assurances in the
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments do not equivocate -- administrative seizures without due
process can be equated only to tyranny and barbarian rule. Further, even regulations governing
124
IRS conduct acknowledge and therefore preserve Fifth Amendment assurances at 26 CFR §
601.106(f)(1).
(1) Rule I. An exaction by the U.S. Government, which is not based upon law, statutory
or otherwise, is a taking of property without due process of law, in violation of the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, an Appeals representative in his or
her conclusions of fact or application of the law, shall hew to the law and the recognized
standards of legal construction. It shall be his or her duty to determine the correct
amount of the tax, with strict impartiality as between the taxpayer and the Government,
and without favoritism or discrimination as between taxpayers.
Even officers, agents and employees of United States agencies are assured due process where
garnishment is concerned (5 USC § 5520a), so the notion that IRS has authority to execute
garnishment and other seizures via the private sector without due process is clearly absurd. In the
English-American lineage, due process has always been deemed to mean trial by jury under rules
of the common law indigenous to the several States; the de jure people of America are not subject
to admiralty or administrative tribunals.
Where officers, agents and employees of the Internal Revenue Service are concerned, there can be
no plea of ignorance concerning the necessity of due process as the Handbook for Revenue
Agents, at paragraph 332: (1), provides the following:
During the course of administratively collecting a tax, an occasion may arise where
service of a levy or a notice of levy is not adequate to seize the property of a taxpayer. It
cannot be emphasized too strongly that constitutional guarantees and individual rights
must not be violated. Property should not be forcibly removed from the person of the
taxpayer. Such conduct may expose a revenue officer to an action in trespass, assault
and battery, conversion, etc.
The provision acknowledges the Supreme Court decision in Larson v. Domestic and Foreign
Commerce Corp. 337 U.S. 682 (1949).
In sum, the mandate for due process, meaning initiatives through judicial courts with proper
jurisdiction, is clearly antecedent to imposition of administratively-issued liens, except where
licensing agreements obligate assets, or seizures, whether by garnishment, attachment of bank
accounts, administrative seizure and sale of real or private property, or any other initiative that
compromises life, liberty or property.
3. Current Internal Revenue Code & Internal Revenue Code of 1939 Are Same
Consult 26 USC §§ 7851 & 7852 to verify that the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended in
1986 and since, simply reorganized the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. Read § 7852(b) & (c), then
read the balance of §§ 7851 & 7852 for best comprehension.
The importance of making this connection rests on the fact that the Internal Revenue Code of
1939 was merely codification of the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939. There was no general income
tax levied against the population at large in 1939 or since. The Public Salary Tax Act of 1939,
which in the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 incorporated the Social Security tax activated after
1936, was premised on the notion that working for federal government is a privilege. Income and
related taxes prescribed in Subtitles A & C of the current Internal Revenue Code have never been
mandatory for anyone other than officers, agents and employees of the United States, as identified
at 26 USC § 3401(c), and agencies of the United States, identified at § 3401(d), particularized at 5
USC §§ 102 & 105.
The privilege tax is an excise rather than direct tax -- the Sixteenth Amendment, fraudulently
promulgated in 1913, did not alter or repeal constitutional provisions which require all direct taxes
to be apportioned among the several States (Constitution, Article I §§ 2.3 & 9.4). In Eisner v.
Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1918), Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, and numerous decisions since,
the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that for purposes of income tax, wages
and other returns from enterprise of common right are property, not income. In fact, returns from
125
enterprise of common right are fundamental to all property, and the sanctity is preserved as a
fundamental common law principle dating to signing of the Magna Charta in 1215.
The nature of Subtitles A & C taxes is revealed at 26 CFR § 31.3101-1: “The employee tax is
measured by the amount of wages received after 1954 with respect to employment after 1936...”
In other words, the wage is not the object, but merely the measure of the tax. This verbiage
constitutes so much legalese in an effort to circumvent the duck test, but the fact that taxes
collected by the Internal Revenue Service fall into the excise category was confirmed by the
Comptroller General’s report following the initial effort to audit IRS (GAO/T-AIMD-93-3). It is
further suggested at 26 CFR § 106.401(a)(2), where the regulation concedes that, “The descriptive
terms used in this section to designate the various classes of taxes are intended only to indicate
their general character...”
By referencing the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules, cited above, it is found that the
definition of “gross income” is still preserved in Section 22 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939,
thus cementing the link between the Code of 1939 and Subtitles A & C of the Code of 1954, as
amended in 1986 and since. The Internal Revenue Code of 1939 merely codified the Public Salary
Tax Act of 1939. This link is further confirmed in Senate Committee On Finance and House
Committee On Ways and Means reports No. H.R. 8300 (1954, Internal Revenue Code), in which §
22 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 and § 61 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (current
code) were solidly linked. Both reports stipulate that the current definition of “gross income” is
intended to be constitutional.
This intent is articulated at 26 CFR § 1.61-1(a): “Gross income means all income from whatever
source derived, unless excluded by law.”
An “Act of Congress” is policy, not law, and per definition located in Rule 54, Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure, has only local application in the District of Columbia and other United States
territories and insular possessions unless general application is manifestly expressed: Rule 54(c) --
“‘Act of congress’ includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District of
Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession.”
Where the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 is concerned (Vol. 68A, Statutes at Large, p. 3), the
legislation is in fact styled, “An Act” “To revise the internal revenue laws of the United States.”
As demonstrated above, wages and other returns from enterprise of common right are exempt
from direct tax by fundamental law, and the regulation for the current Internal Revenue Code
definition for “gross income” clearly articulates the fundamental law exemption.
The exemption as it pertains to the several States is demonstrated by referencing the Parallel Table
of Authorities and Rules (Index volume to the CFR, p. 751 of the 1995 edition): There are 26 CFR,
Part 1 regulations listed for 26 USC §§ 61 & 62, the latter being the definition for adjusted gross
income, but there is no 26 CFR, Part 1 or 31 regulation for 26 USC § 63, the definition for taxable
income.
While definitions for gross and adjusted gross income are clearly antecedent to the definition of
taxable income, they have no legal effect if there is no taxing authority -- adjusted gross income
which is not taxable within the several States is of no consequence where the federal tax system is
concerned.
Further, on examination of 26 CFR § 1.62-1, pertaining to “adjusted gross income”, it is found
that subsections (a) & (b) are reserved so the published regulation is incomplete, with “temporary”
regulation § 1.62-1T serving as the current authority defining “adjusted gross income.” Temporary
regulations have no legal effect.
Definitions at § 3401, Vol. 68A of the Statutes at Large (the Internal Revenue Code of 1954),
make it clear that, (§ 3401(a)(A)), “a resident of a contiguous country who enters and leaves the
United States at frequent intervals..,” is a nonresident alien of the United States (citizens and
residents of the several States included), and the exclusion from “wages” extends even to citizens
of the United States who provide services for employers “other than the United States or an
126
agency thereof” (§ 3401(a)(8)(A)).
4. The Employer or Agent is Liable
Volume 68A of the Statutes at Large, the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, makes it perfectly clear
who is “liable” for payment of Subtitles A & C taxes:
SEC. 3504. ACTS TO BE PERFORMED BY AGENTS. In case a fiduciary, agent, or
other person has the control, receipt, custody, or disposal of, or pays the wages of an
employee or group of employees, employed by one or more employers, the Secretary of
his delegate, under regulations prescribed by him, is authorized to designate such
fiduciary, agent, or other person to perform such acts as are required by employers
under this subtitle and as the Secretary or his delegate may specify. Except as may be
otherwise prescribed by the Secretary or his delegate, all provisions of law (including
penalties) applicable in respect to an employer shall be applicable to a fiduciary, agent,
or other person so designated, but, except as so provided, the employer for whom such
fiduciary, agent, or other person acts shall remain subject to the provisions of law
(including penalties) applicable in respect to employers.
The liability is further clarified at Vol. 68A, Sec. 3402(d):
(d) TAX PAID BY RECIPIENT. -- If the employer, in violation of the provisions of this
chapter, fails to deduct and withhold the tax under this chapter, and thereafter the tax
against which such tax may be credited is paid, the tax so required to be deducted and
withheld shall not be collected from the employer; but this subsection shall in no case
relieve the employer from liability for any penalties or additions to the tax otherwise
applicable in respect to such failure to deduct and withhold.
These provisions from Vol. 68A of the Statutes at Large comply with and verify liability set out at
26 CFR, Part 601, Subpart D in general. Further, territorial limits of application are made clear by
the absence of regulations supporting 26 USC §§ 7621, 7802, etc., which are the statutes
authorizing establishment of internal revenue districts and delegations of authority to the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue and assistants. The fact that the liability falls to the
“employer” (26 USC § 3401(d)) and/or his agent, with no compensation for serving as “tax
collector,” narrows the field to federal government entities as “employers” if for no other reason
than the population at large is not subject to the edict of government officials. As a matter of
course, government cannot compel performance where the general population is concerned. The
subject class that has “liability” for Subtitles A & C taxes is the “employer” or his agent,
fiduciary, etc., as specified above.
The matter is further clarified in Sections 3403 & 3404 of Vol. 68A, Statutes at Large:
SEC. 3403. LIABILITY FOR TAX. The employer shall be liable for the payment of the
tax required to be deducted and withheld under this chapter, and shall not be liable to
any person for the amount of any such payment. SEC. 3404. RETURN AND PAYMENT
BY GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYER. If the employer is the United States, or a State,
Territory, or political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or
instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing, the return of the amount deducted
and withheld upon any wages may be made by any officer or employee of the United
States, or of such State, Territory, or political subdivision, or of the District of
Columbia, or of such agency or instrumentality, as the case may be, having control of
the payment of such wages, or appropriately designated for that purpose.
The territorial application, and limitation, is made clear by definitions in Title 26 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, as follows:
§ 31.3121(3)-1 State, United States, and citizen. (a) When used in the regulations in this
subpart, the term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their
admission as States, and (when used with respect to services performed after 1960)
127
Guam and American Samoa. (b) When used in the regulations in this subpart, the term
“United States”, when used in a geographical sense, means the several states (including
the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their admission as States), the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. When used in the
regulations in this subpart with respect to services performed after 1960, the term
“United States” also includes Guam and American Samoa when the term is used in a
geographical sense. The term “citizen of the United States” includes a citizen of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, and, effective January 1, 1961, a
citizen of Guam or American Samoa.
Definition of the terms “includes” and “including” located at 26 USC § 7701(c) provides the
limiting authority which the above definitions, beyond constructive application, are subject to:
(c) INCLUDES AND INCLUDING. -- The terms “includes” and “including” when used
in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things
otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.
Two principles of law clarify definition intent: (1) The example represents the class, and (2) that
which is not named is intended to be omitted. In the definition of “United States” and “State” set
out above, all examples are of federal States, and are exclusive of the several States, with the
transition of Alaska and Hawaii from the included to the excluded class proving the point. This
conclusion is reinforced by the absence of regulations which extend authority to establish revenue
districts in the several States (26 USC § 7621), authority for the Department of the Treasury
[Puerto Rico] in the several States (26 USC § 7801), and no grant of delegated authority for the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, assistant commissioners, or other Department of the Treasury
personnel (26 USC § 7802 & 7803).
5. Lack of Regulations Supporting General Application of Tax
Here again, the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules is useful as it demonstrates that Subtitles A
& C taxes do not have general application within the several States and to the population at large.
The regulation for 26 USC § 1 refers to 26 CFR § 301, but that amounts to a dead end -- there is
no regulation under 26 CFR, Part 1 or 31 which would apply to the several States and the
population at large. Further, there are no supportive regulations at all for 26 USC §§ 2 & 3, and of
considerable significance, no regulations supporting corporate income tax, 26 USC § 11, as
applicable to the several States.
Where the instant matter is concerned, regulations supporting 26 USC § 6321, liens for taxes, and
§ 6331, levy and distraint, are under 27 CFR, Part 70. The importance here is that Title 27 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is exclusively under Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
administration for Subtitle E and related taxes. There are no corresponding regulations for the
Internal Revenue Service, in 26 CFR, Part 1 or 31, which extend comparable authority to the
several States and the population at large.
The necessity of regulations being published in the Federal Register is variously prescribed in the
Administrative Procedures Act, at 5 USC § 552 et seq., and the Federal Register Act, at 44 USC §
1501 et seq. Of particular note, it is specifically set out at 44 USC § 1505(a), that when regulations
are not published in the Federal Register, application of any given statute is exclusively to agencies
of the United States and officers, agents and employees of the United States, thus once again
confirming application of Subtitles A & C tax demonstrated above. Further, the need for
regulations is detailed in 1 CFR, Chapter 1, and where the Internal Revenue Service is concerned,
26 CFR § 601.702.
The need for regulations has repeatedly been affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States,
as stated in California Bankers Ass’n. v. Schultz, 416 U.S. 21, 26, 94 S.Ct. 1494, 1500, 39 L.Ed.2d
812 (1974):
Because it has a bearing on our treatment of some of the issues raised by the parties, we think it
important to note that the Act’s civil and criminal penalties attach only upon violation of
128
regulations promulgated by the Secretary; if the Secretary were to do nothing, the Act itself would
impose no penalties on anyone ... The government argues that since only those who violate
regulations may incur civil and criminal penalties it is the regulations issued by the Secretary of
the Treasury and not the broad, authorizing language of the statute, which is to be tested against
the standards of the 4th Amendment...
Because there is a citation supporting these statutes applicable under Title 27 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, it is important to point out that, “Each agency shall publish its own
regulations in full text,” (1 CFR § 21.21(c)), with further verification that one agency cannot use
regulations promulgated by another at 1 CFR § 21.40. To date, no corresponding regulation has
been found for 26 CFR, Part 1 or 31, so until proven otherwise, IRS does not have authority to
perfect liens or prosecute seizures in the several States as pertaining to the population at large.
6. Misapplication of Authority
Regulations pertaining to seized property are found at 26 CFR § 601.326:
Part 72 of Title 27 CFR contains the regulations relative to the personal property seized by officers
of the Internal Revenue Service or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms as subject to
forfeiture as being used, or intended to be used, to violate certain Federal Laws; the remission or
mitigation of such forfeiture; and the administrative sale or other disposition, pursuant to
forfeiture, of such seized property other than firearms seized under the National Firearms Act and
firearms and ammunition seized under title 1 of the Gun Control Act of 1968. For disposal of
firearms and ammunition under Title 1 of the Gun Control Act of 1968, see 18 U.S.C. 924(d). For
disposal of explosives under Title XI of Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, see 18 U.S.C.
844(c).
The only other comparable authority thus far found pertains to windfall profits tax on petroleum
(26 CFR § 601.405), but once again, application is not supported by regulations applicable to the
several States and the population at large.
Where the provision for filing 1040 returns is concerned, the key regulatory reference is at 26 CFR
§ 601.401(d)(4), and this application appears related to “employees” who work for two or more
“employers”, receiving foreign-earned income effectively connected to the United States. The
option of filing a 1040 return for refund is mentioned in instructions applicable to United States
citizens and residents of the Virgin Islands, but to date has not been located elsewhere. Reference
OMB numbers for § 601.401, listed on page 170, 26 CFR, Part 600-End, cross referenced to
Department of Treasury OMB numbers published in the Federal Register, November 1995, for
foreign application.
The fact that 1040 tax return forms are optional and voluntary, with special application, is further
reinforced by Delegation Order 182 (reference 26 CFR §§ 301.6020-1(b) & 301.7701). The
Secretary or his delegate is authorized to file a Substitute for Return for the following: Form 941
(Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return); Form 720 (Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return);
Form 2290 (Federal Use Tax Return on Highway Motor Vehicles); Form CT-1 (Employer’s Annual
Railroad Retirement Tax Return); Form 1065 (U.S. Partnership Return of Income); Form 11-B
(Special Tax Return - Gaming Services); Form 942 (Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return for
Household Employees); and Form 943 (Employer’s Annual Tax Return for Agricultural
Employees).
The “notice of levy” instrument forwarded to various third parties is not a “levy” which warrants
surrender of property. The Internal Revenue Code, at § 6335(a), defines the “notice” instrument
by use -- notice is to be served to whomever seizure has been executed against after the seizure is
effected. In short, the notice merely conveys information, it is not cause for action. The term
“notice” is clarified by definition in Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, and other law
dictionaries. Use of the “notice of levy” instrument to effect seizure is fraud by design.
Proper use of the “notice” process, administrative garnishment, et al, is specifically set out in 5
USC § 5514, as being applicable exclusively to officers, agents and employees of agencies of the
129
United States (26 USC § 3401(c)). Even then, however, the process must comply with provisions of
31 USC § 3530(d), and standards set forth in §§ 3711 & 3716-17. In accordance with provisions of
26 CFR, Part 601, Subpart D, the employer, meaning the United States agency the employee is
employed by, is responsible for promulgating regulations and carrying out garnishment.
Even if IRS was the agency responsible for collecting from an “employee,” due process would be
required, as noted above, so authority to collect would ensue only after securing a court order
from a court of competent jurisdiction, which in the several States would mean a judicial court of
the State. In law, however, there is no authority for securing or issuing a Notice of Distraint
premised on non-filing, bogus filing, or any other act relating to the 1040 return. See United States
v. O’Dell, Case No. 10188, Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, March 10, 1947. In G.M. Leasing
Corp. v. United States, 429 U.S. 338 (1977), the United States Supreme Court held that a judicial
warrant for tax levies is necessary to protect against unjustified intrusions into privacy. The Court
further held that forcible entry by IRS officials onto private premises without prior judicial
authorization was also an invasion of privacy.
7. Liability Depends on a Taxing Statute
General demands for filing tax returns, production of records, examination of books, imposition
and payment of tax, etc., are of no consequence to the point a taxing statute (1) defines what tax is
being imposed, and (2) the basis of liability. In other words, even if the Internal Revenue Service
was a legitimate agency of the United States Department of the Treasury and had authority in the
several States, the Service would have to be specific with respect to what tax was at issue and
would have to demonstrate the tax by citing a taxing statute with the necessary elements to
establish that any given person was obligated to pay any given tax.
This mandate has been clarified by the courts numerous times, with the matter definitively stated
by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Community TV, Inc., 327 F.2d 797, at p.
800 (1964):
Without question, a taxing statute must describe with some certainty the transaction, service, or
object to be taxed, and in the typical situation it is construed against the Government. Hassett v.
Welch, 303 U.S. 303, 58 S.Ct. 559, 82 L.Ed.858
In other words, to the point Service personnel produce the statute which mandates a certain tax
and which specifies, “... the transaction, service, or object to be taxed..,” the burden of proof lies
with the Government, with the consequence being that no obligation or civil or criminal liability
can ensue to the point a taxing statute that meets the above requirements is in evidence.
This conclusion is supported by the statute which provides the underlying requirements for
keeping records, making statements, etc., located at 26 USC § 6001:
Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for the collection thereof, shall keep such
records, render such statements, make such returns, and comply with such rules and regulations as
the Secretary may from time to time prescribe. Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary it is
necessary, he may require any person, by notice served upon such person, or by regulations, to
make such returns, render such statements, or keep such records, as the Secretary deems sufficient
to show whether or not such person is liable for tax under this title. The only records which an
employee shall be required to keep under this section in connection with charged tips shall be
charge receipts, records necessary to comply with section 6053(c), and copies of statements
furnished by employees under section 6053(a).
The control statute for Subtitle F, Chapter 61, Subchapter A, Part I, concerning records,
statements, and special returns, clearly returns the matter to the “employee” defined at § 3401(c),
and the “employer” defined at § 3401(d). In general, however, (1) the Secretary must provide
direct notice to whomever is required to keep books, records, etc., as being the “person liable,” or
(2) specify the person liable by regulation. In the absence of notice by the Secretary, based on a
taxing statute which makes such a person liable according to provisions stipulated in United States
v. Community TV, Inc., Hassett v. Welch, and other such cases, or regulations which specifically
130
set establish general liability, there is no liability.
Sec. 6001 also exempts “employees” from keeping records except where tips and the like are
concerned. This is consistent with constructive demonstration that “employers” rather than
“employees” are required to file returns, as opposed to paying deducted amounts as income tax
returns, constructively demonstrated in a previous section of this memorandum and specifically
articulated in 26 CFR § 601.104. Clarification via 26 USC § 6053(a) is as follows:
(a) REPORTS BY EMPLOYEES. -- Every employee who, in the course of his
employment by an employer, receives in any calendar month tips which are wages (as
defined in section 3121(a) or section 3401(a)) or which are compensation (as defined in
section 3231(e)) shall report all such tips in one or more written statements furnished to
his employer on or before the 10th day following such month. Such statements shall be
furnished by the employee under such regulations, at such other times before such 10th
day, and in such form and manner, as may be prescribed by the Secretary.
Unraveling § 6001 straightens out the meaning of § 6011, which requires filing returns, statements,
etc., by the person made liable (§ 3401(d)), as distinguished from the person required to make
returns (payments) at § 6012 (§ 3401(c)). Even though a person might be a citizen or resident of
the United States employed by an agency of the United States, and thereby be required to return a
prescribed amount of United States-source income, he is not the person liable under § 6011 and
attending regulations.
The “method of assessment” prescribed at 26 USC § 6303 is therefore dependent on the taxing
statute and must rest on authority specifically conveyed by a taxing statute which prescribes
liability where the Secretary (1) has provided specific notice, including the statute and type of tax
being imposed, or (2) supports assessment by regulatory application. In the absence of one or the
other, an assessment by the Secretary is of no consequence as it is not legally obligating.
The requirement for the Secretary to provide notice to whomever is responsible for collecting tax,
keeping records, etc., is clarified at 26 CFR § 301.7512-1, particularly (a)(1)(i), relating to
“employee tax imposed by section 3101 of chapter 21 (Federal Insurance Contributions Act),” and
(a)(1)(iii), relating to “income tax required to be withheld on wages by section 3402 of chapter 24
(Collection of Income Tax at Source on Wages)...” The person liable is the employer or the
employer’s agent, and of particular significance, it is this “person” who is subject to civil and
particularly criminal penalties (26 CFR § 301.7513-1(f); 26 CFR §§ 301.7207-1 & 301.7214-1, etc.).
Officers and employees of the United States are specifically identified as being liable at 26 USC §
301.7214-1.
The matter of who is required to register, apply for licenses, or otherwise collect and/or pay taxes
imposed by the Internal Revenue Code is ultimately and finally put to rest under “Licensing and
Registration”, 26 USC §§ 301.7001-1, et seq. Each of the categories so addressed has liability
based on some particular taxing statute which creates liability.
8. The Necessity of Administrative Process
The requirement for a specific taxing statute, with 26 USC § 6001 clearly providing the first leg in
necessary administrative procedure to determine liability, was addressed at length in Rodriguez v.
United States, 629 F.Supp.333 (N.D. Ill. 1986). Presuming (1) the Secretary has provided the
necessary notice, or (2) a regulation prescribes general application which makes any given person
liable for a tax and requires tax return statements to be filed, each step in administrative process
prescribed by 26 USC §§ 6201, 6212, 6213, 6303 and 6331 must be in place for seizure or any other
encumbrance to be legal.
Here again, regulations published in the Federal Register are significant, with provisions of 5 USC
§ 552 et seq., 44 USC § 1501 et seq., 1 CFR, Chapter I, and 26 CFR, Part 601 all supporting the
mandate for regulations to be published in the Federal Register before they have general
application. It will be noted by referencing the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules, beginning
on page 751 of the 1995 Index volume to the Code of Federal Regulations, that application by
131
regulation to the several States is only under Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, or that
there are no regulations published in the Federal Register. The following entries, or non-entries,
are found:
26 USC § 6201 Assessment authority 27 CFR, Part 70 26 USC § 6212 Notice of
deficiency No Regulation 26 USC § 6213 Restrictions applicable to deficiencies; petition
to Tax Court No Regulation 26 USC § 6303 Notice and Demand for Tax 27 CFR, Part
53, 70 26 USC § 6331 Levy and distraint 27 CFR, Part 70
The assessment authority under 26 USC § 6201, in relevant part as applicable to Subtitles A & C
taxes, are as follows:
(a) AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY. -- The Secretary is authorized and required to
make the inquires, determination, and assessments of all taxes (including interest,
additional amounts, additions to the tax, and assessable penalties) imposed by this title,
or accruing under any former internal revenue law, which have been duly paid by stamp
at the time and in the manner provided by law. Such authority shall extend to and
include the following: (1) TAXES SHOWN ON RETURN. -- The secretary shall assess all
taxes determined by the taxpayer or by the Secretary as to which returns or lists are
made under this title. (3) ERRONEOUS INCOME TAX PREPAYMENT CREDITS. -- If
on any return or claim for refund of income taxes under subtitle A there is an
overstatement of the credit for income tax withheld at the source, or of the amount paid
as estimated income tax, the amount so overstated which is allowed against the tax
shown on the return or which is allowed as a credit or refund may be assessed by the
Secretary in the same manner as in the case of a mathematical or clerical error
appearing upon the return, except that the provisions of section 6213(b)(2) (relating to
abatement of mathematical or clerical error assessments) shall not apply with regard to
any assessment under this paragraph. (b) AMOUNT NOT TO BE ASSESSED. -- (1)
ESTIMATED INCOME TAX. -- No unpaid amount of estimated income tax required to
be paid under section 6654 or 6655 shall be assessed. (2) FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT
TAX. -- No unpaid amount of Federal unemployment tax for any calendar quarter or
other period of a calendar year, computed as provided in section 6157, shall be assessed.
(d) DEFICIENCY PROCEEDINGS. -- For special rules applicable to deficiencies of
income, estate, gift, and certain excise taxes, see subchapter B. [emphasis added]
The grant of assessment authority with respect to taxes prescribed in Subtitles A & C is limited to
provisions set out above even where the Service might have authority relating to those made liable
for the tax, meaning the “employer” specified at 26 USC § 3401(d). Clearly, returns made either
by the agent of the United States agency required to file a return, or the Secretary, are to be
evaluated mathematically, and errors are to be treated as clerical errors, nothing more. The
Secretary has no authority to assess estimated income tax (individual estimated income tax at §
6554; corporation estimated income tax at § 6655), or unemployment tax ( § 6157). For all
practical purposes, the trail effectively ends here.
9. The Impossibility of Effective Contract/Election
In order for there to be an opportunity for a nonresident alien of the United States (a Citizen of
one of the several States) to elect to be taxed or treated as a citizen or resident of the United
States, one or the other of a married couple, or the single “individual” making the election, must
be a citizen or resident of the United States (26 USC § 6013(g)(3)). Some party must in some way
be connected with a “United States trade or business” (performance of the functions of a public
office (26 USC § 7701(a)(26)). A nonresident alien never has self-employment income (26 CFR §
1.1402(b)-1(d)). In the event that a nonresident alien is an “employee” (26 USC § 3401(c)), the
“employer” (26 USC § 3401(d)) is liable for collection and payment of income tax (26 CFR §
1.1441-1). And in order for real property to be treated as effectively connected with a United
States trade or business by way of election, it must be located within the geographical United
132
States (26 USC § 871(d)).
Provisions cited above preclude any and all legal authority for Citizens of the several States, or
privately owned enterprise located in the several States, to participate in federal tax and benefits
programs prescribed in Subtitles A & C of the Internal Revenue Code and companion legislation
such as the Social Security Act which provide benefits from the United States Government, which
is a foreign corporation to the several States.
Summary & Conclusion
This memorandum is not intended to be exhaustive, but merely sufficient to support causes set out
separately. The most conspicuous conclusions of law are that Congress never created a Bureau of
Internal Revenue, the predecessor of the Internal Revenue Service; Subtitles A & C of the Internal
Revenue Code prescribe excise taxes, mandatory only for employees of United States Government
agencies; the Internal Revenue Service, within the geographical United States where the Service
appears to have colorable authority, is required to use judicial process prior to seizing or
encumbering assets; and the law demonstrates that people of the several States, defined as
nonresident aliens of the self-interested United States in the Internal Revenue Code, cannot
legitimately elect to be taxed or treated as citizens or residents of the United States. If a Citizen of
one of the several States works for an agency of the United States or receives income from a
United States “trade or business” or otherwise effectively connected with the United States, the
employer or other third party responsible for payment is made liable for withholding taxes at the
rate of 30% or 14%, depending on classification, and is thus “the person liable” and may be
subject to Internal Revenue Service initiatives, with administrative initiatives, where seizure and/or
encumbrance actions are concerned, subject to judicial determinations by courts of competent
jurisdiction.
Notice #2
Notice to Citizens
United States in default... it's the Law!
Public Judicial Notice, Public Judicial Notice #2, and Public Judicial
Notice #3 were published in this public forum upon this WebSite for
twenty (20) consecutive days. Each has also been published in accordance
with law in Veritas National Newspaper, The Round Valley Paper, and
many other publications throughout the United States of America. The law
requires they be published for only 3 consecutive days or issues in the
media in which they are printed. The United States including but not
limited to the Department of the Treasury, and Internal Revenue Service
has defaulted failing to rebut any allegations of fact in any of these Public
Judicial Notices within the twenty days allotted. According to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and attending State rules, "He who remains
silent consents." In accordance with State and Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure the allegations of fact in each of these Public Judicial Notices
are now PRESUMED FACT. All Citizens may now act in accordance with
these FACTS.
Proof of service is registered on the WebSite server and in the captured files of the Statistics for the
WebSite
program which has registered the download of this entire WebSite by United States government
computers
including, but not limited to, The White House, the Department of the Treasury, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the United States Postal Service, the Internal Revenue Service, the Bureau of Alcohol
Tobacco and
Firearms, the Pentagon, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), United States
Military
133
installations across the nation, and EVERY United States National Laboratory including, but not limited
to,
Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, Berkeley, and etc.
Public Judicial Notice #2
Judicial notice is hereby served by affiants upon the United States any other interested party
named within. This public notice will be construed to comply with provisions necessary to
establish presumed fact under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and attending State rules
should interested parties fail to rebut any given allegation or matter of law addressed herein. The
position will be construed as adequate to meet requirements of judicial notice, thus preserving
fundamental law. Matters addressed herein, if not rebutted, will be construed to have general
application. This public notice includes all information which will be found by following the links
on this page and by following the links found on any page that is linked from this page. A true
and correct copy of this Public Notice is on file with and available for inspection at the office of
VERITAS national newspaper and at the office of Harvest Trust. This public notice addresses
federal jurisdiction, federal authority, jurisdiction and authority of federal agents, the
Constitutionality and lawful character of the income tax and the Internal Revenue Service, and
other agencies of the United States government including but not limited to the Department of the
Treasury, and legal application of the Internal Revenue Code.
Any statements or claims made by the Affiants in this public notice, properly rebutted by facts of
Law, or by overriding Constitution for the United States of America, Article Three, Supreme
Court rulings, shall not prejudice the Lawful validity of other claims not properly rebutted or
invalidated by facts of Law.
This public notice has been published on this WebPages for more than three days which fulfills the
legal requirement under the law in accordance to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and attending
rules of the State of Arizona. This public notice is mirrored on three websites in addition to this
website.
It appears that we, William and Annie Cooper, have been targeted for imprisonment or
extermination by the federal government and the Anti Defamation League (ADL) for documenting
and sourcing the truth about the tyranny and despotism of the Illuminati's coming socialist
totalitarian new world order. We have worked feverishly since 1988 documenting and sourcing the
facts of the treason being brought about by the Illuminati's socialist change agents in government,
and through the activities of Secret Societies and organizations such as the subversive Anti
Defamation League. We are not criminals. Everything we have ever done has been in good faith
and with reasonable cause. We are not afraid. We will not run and hide. We will continue to
oppose evil whenever and wherever we find it. We will stand and fight whomever or whatever
assault they may mount against us.
I first learned of the treason taking place in this country (and around the world) when I discovered
the plan named "MAJESTYTWELVE" while a member of the Intelligence Briefing Team and
Petty officer of the watch in the command center of Admiral Bernard Clarey who at that time was
the Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet. The plan outlined the implementation of all of the
planks of the Communist Manifesto which began with the graduated so-called Income Tax
administered by the fiction known as the Internal Revenue Service, the disarmament of the
American People through laws instigated by a series of "terrorist" acts, the formation of a world
police force made up of the United Nations force known as NATO combined with the military
forces of the United States and the members of the United Nations force known as the "Warsaw
Pact" which plan is outlined in State Department Publication 7277. It documented the intent to
demonize and target Patriots and so-called "tax protestors" through "Project Trojan Horse"...
and much much more.
We have been documenting and sourcing the facts of this plan since 1988 in lectures and speaking
engagements
134
throughout the nation and the world. The accuracy of MAJESTYTWELVE and our research is
reflected in the fact that since 1988 I have made over 150 predictions of future world events and
have only been wrong once.
The Illuminati's Rush Limbaugh read a White House memo that stated, "William Cooper is the
most dangerous radio host in America" on his so-called Excellence In Broadcasting Network in
1995 following the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma. It was an cowardly effort to redirect the socialist attack on so-called "right wing"
radio hosts away from Limbaugh and onto me, William Cooper, while touting himself as "the
most dangerous radio host in America."
My FBI record, which was initiated by the investigation required by my Secret security clearance
while in the U.S. Air Force, and my Top Secret Q (SI) security clearance while in the U.S. Navy,
was one of those found in possession of the White House during the scandal known as "Filegate".
President Clinton ordered that all agencies of government begin an investigation naming us
enemies of the administration and "domestic terrorists". Since when is telling the truth terrorism
in this country?
After writing much of this in other publications and while addressing these facts in speaking
arrangements , the government and the ADL ordered their puppets to
go after us with the intent of shutting us up for good. U.S. Attorney Janet Reno, the butcher of
Waco, ordered the Nazi Gestapo to go after us which immediately launched investigations by the
FBI, IRS, Financial Crimes Network, and many others. Reno ordered her Phoenix based puppet
U.S. Attorney Janet Napolitano to shut us up. Our investigation demonstrates that Janet Reno,
Phoenix based United States Attorney Janet Napolitano, Assistant United States Attorney Stephan
Winerip and Special Agent Frank Shupnik, and possibly Judge Irwin are members or supporters
of the ADL. Shupnik and Winrip have been the most persistent and subversive of the Law in their
relentless persecution of this family.
I have engaged myself in research to discover if the information regarding the federal income tax that I
had
seen in MAJESTYTWELVE could be documented. Of all the subjects that I have researched over the
years, the unconstitutionality and unlawful application of the federal income tax by the bogus and
unconstitutional Internal Revenue Service to the People domiciled within the territorial
boundaries of the union states outside of the Constitutional and lawful jurisdiction and authority
of the United States government turned out to be the easiest to document and source.
I immediately understood that the income tax is "private law" fraudulently and unconstitutionally
applied to the Citizens of the States of the union and others. This becomes obvious when you
begin to understand that "tax courts" are not authorized in the constitution and so must be
extra-judicial private courts or subversive unconstitutional courts engaged in treasonous activities
against the Citizens of the States of the union. It appears that the Citizens of the States of the
union are fraudulently brought under the income tax laws through contracts to which they did not
wittingly or willingly subscribe. Any contract where full disclosure of all terms of the contract has
not been made to all parties thereto are frauds and are null and void upon their inception but
most certainly upon discovery of the fraud.
We have discovered the fraud and hereby serve judicial notice of our discovery.
We DEMAND the Internal Revenue Service disclose any and all agreements, contracts, adhesions,
laws, regulations, or statutes which make us liable to file and/or pay the so-called income tax. We
demand the Internal Revenue Service disclose the true nature of the legal fiction which the IRS
contends is us.
Ours and other's legal research, and information obtained through the Freedom of Information
Act, revealed that the federal government and its agents have no authority whatsoever to conduct
such an investigation. In fact it once again confirmed that the federal government has no
authority or federal jurisdiction within the territorial boundaries of any state of the union
135
whatsoever except on property purchased by the government where jurisdiction has lawfully been
ceded to the federal government by the state legislature, and over only those specific crimes
enumerated in the Constitution for the united States of America. There is only one exception and
that is extraterritorial jurisdiction brought about by treaties with foreign nations such as the
Crown of England. We are not citizens of any foreign government. We are not subjects of the
Crown of England or Great Britain. We are not subjects of the Queen of England or Great Britain.
My research was confirmed with the following:
"The power of the United States to tax is limited to persons, property, and business within their
jurisdiction, as much as that of a state is limited to the same subjects within its jurisdiction." -
Supreme Court Justice Fields
"It is a well-established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within the
territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears." Foley Brothers v.
Filardo, 336 U.S. 281.
And then this by the Supreme Court of New York:
The Supreme Court of New York was presented with the issue of whether the State of New York
had jurisdiction over a murder committed at Fort Niagara, a federal fort. In People v. Godfrey, 17
Johns. 225, 233 (N.Y. 1819), that court held that the fort was subject to the jurisdiction of the
State since the lands therefore had not been ceded to the United States: "To oust this state of its
jurisdiction to support and maintain its laws, and to punish crimes, it must be shown that an
offense committed within the acknowledged limits of the state, is clearly and exclusively
cognizable by the laws and courts of the United States. In the case already cited, Chief Justice
Marshall observed, that to bring the offense within the jurisdiction of the courts of the union, it
must have been committed out of the jurisdiction of any state; it is not, the offence committed,
but the place in which it is committed, which must be out of the jurisdiction of the state."
The IRS makes it own rules (constitutes unconstitutional legislative action) but the Internal
Revenue Manual Handbook. 10.3.1.1 Chap. 7 Enforcement Activities and Investigative
Techniques admits no agent of the United States government has any authority or jurisdiction to
serve a summons or arrest warrant anywhere other than "within the jurisdiction of the United
States":
"[10.3.1.1] 7.2.3 (10/01/96)
"Service and Return
1."An arrest warrant can be executed by a federal marshal or by some other officer authorized
by law. The summons may be served by any person authorized to serve a summons in a civil
action; however, Inspectors should make every effort to serve their own summonses. The
arrest warrant can be executed, and the summons served, at any place within the jurisdiction
of the United States. (Emphasis in red mine)
I discovered that the Internal Revenue Service is NOT an agency of the Department of the
Treasury or the federal government. It is not listed as required by law in the United States Code
under the organization of the Department of the Treasury nor is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
and Firearms, or the Secret Service, nor are any of these bogus agencies listed in the United States
Code as agencies of any other branch of government. These agencies are in fact fictions.
The United States Supreme Court in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company while ruling
that the income tax is an excise (indirect tax) included as a part of its ruling that the federal
income tax is VOID because Congress unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the
Secretary of the Treasury to write the Law concerning the administrative and enforcement
procedures. It was a blatant and unconstitutional breach of the separation of powers and in any
case the Constitution does not grant Congress the ability to delegate its powers to anyone or
anything or any entity. The IRS, BATF, the Secret Service, and all of their administrative rules,
regulations, and enforcement powers were created unconstitutionally by the stroke of a pen of a
Department of the Treasury employee. That is why there is so much subterfuge and so many lies
136
involved in the administration and enforcement of the tax by the so-called Internal Revenue
Service.
Uncertainty of the Law: American courts have failed to identify what is the nature of the income
tax. This uncertainty of the constitutional classification of this form of taxation presents a
monumental due process problem for the American people. Members of Congress should be
informed of this uncertainty of the law which they did not create.
On January 8, 1991, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Americans who refuse to pay their income
taxes because they sincerely believe that the tax law is unconstitutional COULD NOT be convicted
of willful tax evasion! According to Justice Byron White "someone's good faith belief that a
federal tax on his or her wages is unlawful, would not make that person guilty of a crime requiring
willful action, no matter how unreasonable that persons belief".
Even if the income tax were Constitutional it is misapplied to the Citizens of the States of the
union except where the IRS can prove that a Citizen has contracted, with full disclosure by the
IRS to that Citizen of all terms and liabilities of that contract, to make him or herself liable.
American Legacy Resources wrote one of the best explanations of what the income tax is and what
it is not. Visit their Taxation Supplement for a mind expanding experience. Another extremely
educational site is called Taxgate. Once you begin to understand how badly you have been
defrauded, cheated, and extorted you will never be able to return to sheopledom.
In light of the above we filed FOIA requests asking the IRS for specific documents which
specifically require us to file and pay the so-called income tax... they could not and did not
produce any such documentation but sent me a copy of an old 1040 which I had filed before I
mustered the guts to stop filing based upon the information I had seen in MAJESTYTWELVE and
from my research which verified that the tax is a criminal fraud. The implication was that the
1040s which I had filed in the past was their only authority. In other words I had signed the form
stating that I was a "taxpayer". The interpretation of the IRS was that since I had filed previously
it was an admission that I was required to file. Hitler would have loved their reasoning. When we
filed we filed either by honest mistake because we had not yet discovered the fraud or because of
fear and intimidation which is called extortion. Fraud and extortion are criminal acts under the
law. When we discovered the fraud we declared all contracts and signatures past, present, and
future, which might make us liable to the fraud to be null and void due to fraud.
We also filed FOIA requests asking the IRS for specific documents which gave the IRS the
authority to conduct an investigation of a Citizen of Arizona. The IRS could not, and did not,
produce any such documentation. We noticed Special Agent Shupnik and Assistant U.S. Attorney
Winerip to produce their credentials and documentation of their authority to conduct such an
investigation... they refused because they could not as no such documents exists.
We learned of an secret agreement between the individual states of the union and the IRS. We
obtained an unredacted copy and found that it is an agreement granting jurisdiction to the IRS to
require federal employees who are state Citizens and residents of the states to file and pay the
so-called federal income tax. No cession of jurisdiction over these people was granted by the state
legislature as required by Law. If the so-called Internal Revenue Service has the jurisdiction and
authority to require Citizens and residents of the states to file and pay the so-called income tax
why do they have to have an special secret agreement between the IRS and the states to tax their
federal employees who live and work outside the jurisdiction and authority of the United States
government?
We filed suit against the United States government, the IRS, Attorney General Janet Reno, U.S.
Attorney for the District of Arizona Janet Napolitano, and others, demanding the court simply
order the defendants to either produce the documentation that allows the IRS to tax and/or
investigate a Citizen of any state of the union or admit that no such documentation exists, and
several other points of Law. The suit has been active for almost three years and the federal judge
has refused to order the defendants to obey the law and produce their authority or admit that it
137
does not exist. The attorney for defendants, Katz (another ADL member) has slipped up and
admitted in documents that he/she filed in this case that no such documentation (thus no such
authority) exists in the Phoenix District. This suit is still awaiting adjudication in United States
District Court in Phoenix, Arizona. The government and the ADL wants us in prison or dead
before the judge is forced to rule in our favor as he must if he obeys the Law. Recent experience
tells us that the courts have been corrupted and the law is frequently ignored. Pro Se litigants are
all but ignored by federal judges who pass the cases to clerks to handle.
Upon discovery that U.S. District Court in Phoenix is an Article I Court we withdrew our suit
against defendants for the reason that Title I Courts have no jurisdiction over Citizens of the
Union States. Only Article III Courts and the U.S. Supreme Court have jurisdiction in cases
concerning Citizens of Union States. We cannot find an Article III Court existing anywhere in the
united States of America.
We have not committed any crime; but on June 18, 1998 a United States Marshall came to the
Trust Headquarters in Eagar, Arizona to serve a summons for criminal trial in U.S. District Court
in Phoenix Arizona on "legal fictions". We told him that we are not the legal fictions named in the
summons and ordered him off the Trust property. I told him he was trespassing and that he had
no federal jurisdiction or authority within the territorial boundaries of the state of Arizona. He
knew I was right and obeyed me without serving the papers thus proving me right.
Since no legal fictions can be found at our Trust Headquarters and domicile and since no service
was made the Court can take no action if the Court obeys the Law. As we discovered with Waco,
Ruby Ridge, and other federal atrocities the federal Courts seldom obey the Law. The Marshall
told me that if the legal fictions named in the summons did not appear in federal Court in
Phoenix, Arizona on July 1, 1998 a warrant will be issued for OUR arrest. We will not appear as
we are not the legal fictions named in the summons, the court has no jurisdiction or authority
over us domiciled within the territorial boundaries of the State of Arizona, and we will not allow
an unconstitutional arrest to occur.
As members of the Constitutional and Lawfully constituted unorganized Militia of the State and
of the united States of America we have the Right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United
States of America and the Constitution of the State of Arizona to keep and bear arms in defense
of our property, ourselves, the State of Arizona, and the Constitution for the United States of
America. Therefore we have not only the Right but the duty to stand and fight the federal Gestapo
with all the means at our disposal and any assault which may be mounted upon our property or
upon us.
Our children will remain with us. They are not shields, as our enemies will claim, any more than
children have been shields for families which have been attacked by despotism throughout history.
Allowing our children to disappear into the immoral and destructive government child care and
foster home industry run by the mind controlling bogus Psychology profession only to be abused
and sexually assaulted for many years is a fate worse than death, and we simply will not allow such
a thing to happen to our precious little girls. The federal and/or State government have no
jurisdiction or authority of kidnap our children for any reason whatsoever.
The people who have infiltrated our government and are destroying it from within are morally
bankrupt and in fact are Nazi jack booted thugs of the worst SS Hitler storm trooper type. They
have no ethics, morals, or respect for life, property, religion, or the Law. The Nazis were socialists
and socialists are Nazis. Socialists are in complete control of the government of the united States
of America today.
We are not anti-government, radical, fundamentalist, crazy, suicidal, criminals, child molesters,
bank robbers, child abusers, tax protestors, wife beaters, husband beaters, drug users, drug
dealers, drug growers, drug stockpilers, revolutionaries, subversives, terrorists, white supremicist,
racists, anti-Semitic, or any other demonizing label that may be applied. We do not have illegal
weapons, hand grenades, bombs, missiles, tanks, machine guns, anti-tank rockets, anti-aircraft
138
weapons or any other demonized instrument of any type whatsoever. And our Trust Headquarters
and domicile is NOT a compound.
We are intelligent law abiding reasonable People who have drawn our line in the sand. Our enemy
will attempt to demonize us in order to obtain the public's permission to murder our whole family
just as they did the Weaver family and the Branch Davidians at Waco, Texas. I never thought I
would hear so-called Christians whose ancestors fled the old world to escape religious persecution
say, "The Branch Davidians deserved what they got... they were just a bunch of religious
fanatics," but I heard so-called Christians say it over and over and over again.
If we are found dead it will NEVER be because we committed suicide. It will be cold blooded
murder, just as they did at Ruby Ridge, The World Trade Center, Waco, and Oklahoma City.
We are pro-government, lawful government, lawful Constitutional Republican government as
guaranteed to us in the Constitution for the United States of America. We know what the
government is and what it is not. We know that the Constitution for the united States of America
constitutes the lawful government and anything or anyone outside its strictures, limits, and powers
is operating unlawfully and are in fact outlaws.
We know that the Constitution was not penned by a bunch of dottering old men who did not
understand the complexities of the modern age over two hundred years ago. The Constitution was
produced by the greatest collection of geniuses who have ever lived. It is the LIVING Supreme
Law of our country. It provides within the document itself the provisions for us to make any
changes that we may deem necessary. Only a very few changes (Amendments) have ever been
made. Those changes or deletions wished for by the socialist/communist Illuminati have been
rejected by the American People.
I have served my government all my life. I have been a member of the United States Air Force and
the United States Navy. I am a combat veteran of the Vietnam war. I fought as a River Patrol
Boat Captain in Vietnam earning medals with the "V" for Valor. I took an Oath to, "support and
defend the Constitution for the united States of America against all enemies foreign and
DOMESTIC." I intend to fulfill that Oath until the day I die... and after, if that is possible.
What we have included here is by not to be construed to be the entirety of our legal position.
The Affiants hereby give the government agents, to whom this public notice is directed, twenty
(20) calendar days from the date that this public notice is published on these WebPages to respond
to this public notice.
All responses to this affidavit must be designated for delivery EXACTLY as prescribed below,
without omitting any parentheses. Otherwise, any attempted correspondence with the Affiant will
be returned to the sender, "Refused for Fraud."
William Cooper
All Rights Reserved
(c/o Independence Trust, P.O. Box 1462, Lakeside, (de jure, union state of Arizona)
non-assumpsit to the venue of "AZ" (these united states of America) non-domestic, i.e.,
non-government mail delivery non-assumpsit to the venue of (40351)
Annie Cooper
All Rights Reserved
(c/o Independence Trust, P.O. Box 1462, Lakeside, (de jure, union state of Arizona)
non-assumpsit to the venue of "AZ" (these united states of America) non-domestic, i.e.,
non-government mail delivery non-assumpsit to the venue of (40351)
The Affiants now affixe Affiants' signatures to all of the above affirmations with explicit
reservation of all of Affiants' unalienable Rights without prejudice to any of those Rights.
I William, Cooper. declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the 1787 Constitution for
the United States of America that the foregoing public notice is, to the best of William, Cooper's
Knowledge, belief, understanding and information, true, correct certain and complete.
In God we trust.
139
This public notice was published to this WebPages on June 28, 1998.
Further the Affronts sayeth naught.
(signed) William, Cooper Annie, Cooper - Affiants
Dorothy Cooper and Allyson Cooper minor children of Affiants
Notice to Citizens
United States in default... it's the Law!
Public Judicial Notice, Public Judicial Notice #2, and Public Judicial
Notice #3 were published in this public forum upon this WebSite for
twenty (20) consecutive days. Each has also been published in accordance
with law in Veritas National Newspaper, The Round Valley Paper, and
many other publications throughout the United States of America. The law
requires they be published for only 3 consecutive days or issues in the
media in which they are printed. The United States including but not
limited to the Department of the Treasury, and Internal Revenue Service
has defaulted failing to rebut any allegations of fact in any of these Public
Judicial Notices within the twenty days allotted. According to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and attending State rules, "He who remains
silent consents." In accordance with State and Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure the allegations of fact in each of these Public Judicial Notices
are now PRESUMED FACT. All Citizens may now act in accordance with
these FACTS.
Proof of service is registered on the WebSite server and in the captured files of the Statistics for the
WebSite
program which has registered the download of this entire WebSite by United States government
computers
including, but not limited to, The White House, the Department of the Treasury, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the United States Postal Service, the Internal Revenue Service, the Bureau of Alcohol
Tobacco and
Firearms, the Pentagon, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), United States
Military
installations across the nation, and EVERY United States National Laboratory including, but not limited
to,
Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, Berkeley, and etc.
Public Judicial Notice
Public Judicial Notice #2
Public Judicial Notice #3
Posted at 2:10 p.m. PDT July 7, 1998. No changes or corrections will be made.
Notice, Contract, Declaration of Citizenship, Affidavit, Demand, and
Jurisdiction Challenge
To IRS - Put up or shut up!
We give the Internal Revenue Service 20 Calendar days to respond.
$10,000 REWARD
This Notice, Contract, Declaration of Citizenship, Affidavit, Demand, and Jurisdiction Challenge
addresses federal jurisdiction, federal authority, jurisdiction and authority of federal agents, the
Constitutionality and lawful character of the income tax, the Internal Revenue Service, and other
agencies of the United States government including but not limited to the Department of the
Treasury, and legal application of the Internal Revenue Code. It will be construed to comply with
provisions necessary to establish presumed fact (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and attending
State rules) should interested parties fail to rebut within 20 calendar days any given allegation or
matter of law addressed herein. The position will be construed as adequate to meet requirements
140
of judicial notice, thus preserving fundamental law. Matters addressed herein, if not rebutted
within 20 calendar days, will be construed to have general application.
In federal criminal prosecutions involving jurisdictional type crimes, the government must prove
the existence of federal jurisdiction by showing U.S. ownership of the place where the crime was
committed and state cession of jurisdiction. If the government contends for the power to
criminally prosecute for an offense committed outside "its jurisdiction," it must prove an
extra-territorial application of the statute in question as well as a constitutional foundation
supporting the same. Absent this showing, no federal prosecution can be commenced for offenses
committed outside "its jurisdiction."
"Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven." Hagins v Lavine, supra note 3 "No sanction
can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction." Standard v Olson, 74 S.Ct. 768 "It has also been
held that jurisdiction must be affirmatively shown and will not be presumed." Special Indem.
Fund v Prewitt, 205 F2d 306, 201 OK. 308.
All interested parties must make rebuttals to the address contained in item #146 below.
A true and correct signed copy of this document is on file with and available for inspection at the
office of VERITAS national newspaper. Interested parties can obtain a certified copy by sending a
BLANK $50 postal money order to: VERITAS, c/o P.O. Box 1450, Eagar, Arizona 85925
Notice, Contract, Declaration of Citizenship, Affidavit, Demand, and Jurisdiction Challenge
Know all Men and Women by these presents
de jure, union state ) of Arizona ) ) Ss. Affidavit of Fact ) Apache County )
Whereas: The Eternal and Unchanging Principles of the Laws of commerce are:
1. A matter must be expressed to be resolved.
2. In commerce, Truth is Sovereign.
3. Truth is expressed in the form of an Affidavit
4. An undisputed Affidavit stands as Truth in Commerce.
5. An undisputed Affidavit becomes the judgment in commerce.
6. An Affidavit of Fact, under Commercial Law, can only be satisfied:
I. through a Rebuttal Affidavit of Fact, point for point;
II. by payment;
III. by agreement;
IV. by resolution by a jury according to the rules of Common Law;
7. A worker is worthy of his hire;
8. All are equal under the Law.
The foundation of Commercial Law is based upon certain eternally just, valid, moral precepts and
truth, which have remained unchanged for at least six thousand (6,000) years, having its roots in
Mosaic Law. Said Commercial Law forms the underpinnings of Western Civilization, if not all
Nations, Law and Commerce in this world. Commercial Law is non-judicial and is prior and
superior to the basis of and cannot be set aside or overruled by the statutes of any governments,
Legislatures, Quasi-Governmental Agencies, Courts, Judges, and Law Enforcement Agencies,
which are under an inherent obligation to uphold said Commercial Law.
Know all Men that William, Cooper hereinafter, "the Affiant", certifies in this Affidavit of Fact
that the following facts are true, correct, certain and complete to the best of the Affiant's
knowledge, belief and information.
I, William, Cooper a sui juris, Free, Good and Lawful, Christian, Man upon the Land, who was
natural-born on the sixth day of the fifth month of the year of our Lord, nineteen hundred and
forty-three in the de jure Los Angeles county of the De jure, union state of California, who is
currently a Free Inhabitant, Citizen of the de jure Apache county, of the de jure union state of
Arizona in addition to Citizen of the union state of California, and whose mailing location is: All
Rights Reserved, ( c/o Harvest Trust, c/o P.O. Box 1970, Eagar, de jure, union state of Arizona)
non-assumpsit to the venue of "AZ" (these united States of America) non-domestic, i.e.,
141
non-government mail delivery, non-assumpsit to the venue of ( 85925 ), does solemnly affirm,
declare, attest and depose:
1. That the Affiant is of Lawful age to make this Affidavit.
2. That the Affiant is competent to make this Affidavit.
3. That the Affiant has personal knowledge of the facts as stated herein.
4. That the Affiant is not under the Lawful guardianship or disability of another.
5. That the Affiant makes this Affidavit of Fact as a matter of record of the Affiant's own Right,
sui juris, in the Affiant's own proper self, in propria persona.
6. That the Affiant was natural-born a Citizen of the de jure union state of California in the de
jure Los Angeles county on the sixth day of the fifth month of the year of our Lord, nineteen
hundred and forty-three. That Affiant's wife, Annie Mordhorst was natural-born a Citizen of the
de jure nation of Taiwan in the de jure city of Taipei on the eighth day of the eleventh month of
the year of our Lord, nineteen hundred and fifty-three.
7. That as a natural-born, de jure, preamble Citizen of the de jure, union state of California, the
Affiant declares the Affiant's sovereignty extended to the Affiant by All Mighty GOD. That
Affiant's wife by virtue of the "Common Law" as the lawful wife of Affiant Affiant's lawful wife is
a de jure, Common Law Citizen of the de jure, union state of California and sovereignty is
extended to the Affiant's lawful wife by ALL MIGHTY GOD.
8. That the de jure, union states of Arizona and California are of the freely associated, compact
states of the American union.
9. That the Affiant is a Citizen under the 1776, Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united
States of America (also known as the Declaration of Independence); the 1777 Articles of
Confederation; the 1787 Constitution for the united States of America; the Bill of Rights ratified
in 1791, and precedent decisions of the Constitution for the united States of America, Article III
justice Courts of Law. That Affiant's wife by virtue of the "Common Law" as the lawful wife of
Affiant is a Citizen of the same.
10. That the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are possessed of unalienable, GOD-given Rights
from Affiant's and Affiant's lawful wife's creator.
11. That Affiant's and Affiant's lawful wife's unalienable Rights are memorialized in and secured
by the 1787 Constitution for the united States of America and the 1791 Bill of Rights.
12. That the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife have not ever, do not now, and will not ever
knowingly, willingly, voluntarily or intentionally waive any of the Affiant's or Affiant's lawful
wife's Rights.
13. That the government of the United States may not assume any power over the Citizens of the
de jure union states which is not specifically delegated to the United States by the creators of the
United States, that is, the Citizens of the de jure, union states.
14. That the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife do not owe their Citizenship to the so-called
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution for the united States.
15. That the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife ARE NOT LIABLE for the Title 26 United States
Code/Internal Revenue Code, Subtitle-A, Section One graduated income taxes for reasons of the
Affiant's and Affiant's lawful wife's alienage to the State of the forum of United States Tax Laws.
16. That the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife were not born in a territory over which the United
States is sovereign.
17. That the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are not citizens subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States, as defined in
(26 Code of Federal Regulations 1.1-1(c)); to wit:
(c)Who is a citizen: Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its
jurisdiction is a citizen.
3A American Jurisprudence 1420, Aliens and Citizens. A person is born subject to the jurisdiction
of the United States, for purposes of acquiring citizenship at birth, If this birth occurs in a
142
territory over which the United States is sovereign.
18. That the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are "non-resident to" and "not a dweller within" the
jurisdiction of the "State of the Forum" of Article One, Section Eight, Clause Seventeen, and
Article Four, Section Three, Clause Two of the Constitution for the united States of America, in
which the United States Congress "exercises exclusive Legislation in; all Cases whatsoever; over
said District not exceeding ten Miles square." beyond the seat of Government of places legally
ceded by the union states for the erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other
needful Buildings, or any other territories or properties "belonging to" the United States.
Consequently, the Affiant is not liable for the (Title 26 United States Code, Subtitle-A, Section
One), graduated income tax for reasons of the Affiant's non-residence to such State of Forum.
19. That "It is a well-established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within the
territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears." Foley Brothers v.
Filardo, 336 U.S. 281.
20. That the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are not a "resident of", "inhabitant of", "franchise
of", "subject of", "ward of", "chattel of", or "subject to the jurisdiction of" the State of the
forum of any United States, the corporate State, corporate County, or corporate City, Municipal,
body politics created under the primary authority of Article one, Section Eight, Clause seventeen,
and Article Four, Section Three, Clause Two of the Constitution for the united States of America,
therefore, the Affiant is not subject to any legislation created by such authorities; is not subject to
the jurisdiction of any employees, officers or agents deriving the authority thereof; is not subject
to Administrative, Constitution for the united States of America, Article One courts, and is not
bound by precedents of such courts:
Legislation enacted by Congress applicable to the inferior federal courts in the exercise of power
under Article III of the Constitution cannot be affected by legislation enacted by congress under
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution. D.C. Code, Title 11, at page thirteen
21. That as sovereign Citizens of one of the union states, under the constitution for the united
States of America and Law, only Constitution for the united States of America, Article Three,
Justice Courts of law decisions are applicable to the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife.
22. That the reader is hereby w a r n e d to TAKE NOTICE that through the Contract and
Declaration of Citizenship/Affidavit of Fact, presently before the reader, the Affiant and Affiant's
lawful wife hereby C A N C E L S any and all presumed election(s) made by the United States
government or by any agency or department thereof, that has assumed that the Affiant and/or
Affiant's lawful wife is or ever has been a citizen or resident of any territory, possession,
instrumentality, or enclave under the sovereignty or exclusive jurisdiction of the united states as
defined and limited to the United States in Article One, Section Eight, Clause Seventeen and
Article Four Section Three, Clause Two of the Constitution for the united States of America, and
furthermore, the Affiant hereby C A N C E L S any presumption that the Affiant or Affiant's
lawful wife ever knowingly, willingly, voluntarily or intentionally elected to be treated as such a
citizen or resident.
23. That the reader is hereby w a r n e d to TAKE NOTICE that through the Contract and
Declaration of Citizenship/Affidavit of Fact, presently before the reader, the Affiant and Affiant's
lawful wife; hereby; a) R E S C I N D S all endorsements, subscriptions or presumed signatures
attributed to the hand of the Affiant, on any form or document whatsoever, which may be
construed or has been construed to give the International Monetary Fund; the United Nations; any
entity that claims to have a treaty, compact, contract, agreement or understanding with the United
States government; the Internal Revenue Service; the Social Security Administration; or any
agency or entity of the United States government created under the authority of the Constitution
for the united States of America, Article One, Section Eight, Clause Seventeen and Article Four,
Section Three, Clause Two; or any other government - whether said government be de jure, de
facto, foreign, domestic, local, state, national, international, hemispheric, global, secular or one
143
which maintains the trappings, vestments and appearance of a true ecclesiastical organization -
whatsoever, any authority or jurisdiction over the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife; through
inadvertence, fraud (see 1 after end of this paragraph) or mistake; b) RESCINDS and makes V0ID
ab initio, all powers of attorney, in fact, in presumption, or otherwise, endorsed or subscribed by
the Affiant or which bear a presumed signature attributed to the hand of the Affiant, or signed by
someone or some thing else, without the Affiant's prior, knowing, willing, voluntary and
intentional consent, as such power of attorney pertains to the Affiant, but not limited to, any and
all quasi-colourable, corporate governmental entities, private or public, on the grounds of
constructive fraud and non-disclosure.
1 United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 65-66
24. That the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are not now, and will not ever, knowingly, willingly,
voluntarily or intentionally be an officer, employee, elected official or chattel of the United States;
the District of Columbia; or an agency, franchise or instrumentality of the United States, the
District of Columbia, the Royal Family of Great Britain, or the Vatican.
25. That the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are not an officer of a corporation under a duty to
withhold.
26. That the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are not an "employee" as that "term" is defined in
Law and in the Internal Revenue Code, Federal Register, Tuesday, September 7, 1943, section
404.104, page 12267, to wit:
Employee: The term "employee" specifically includes officers and employees whether elected or
appointed of the United States, a State, territory, or political subdivision thereof or of the District
or Columbia or any agency instrumentality or any one or more of the foregoing.
Section 3401(c) EMPLOYEE For purposes of this chapter, the term employee Includes an officer,
employee or elected official of the United States, a State or any political subdivision thereof, the
District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The
term also includes an officer of a corporation.
27. That, because the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are NOT an "employee", the Affiant does
not earn "wages" as such terms are defined in the Internal Revenue Code, to wit:
Section 3401(a) Wages...the term "wages' means all remuneration...for services performed by an
employee for his employer... .
28. That, pursuant to the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939, Title One, Section One, the Affiant and
Affiant's lawful wife do not earn "gross income" as such term is defined therein. The Public Salary
Tax Act of 1939, Title 1 - Section 1, Section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code relating to the
definition of "gross income" (is amended after the words "compensation for personal service")
includes [only] personal service as an officer or employee of a State, or any political subdivision
thereof, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing.
29. That the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are not involved in any type of "revenue taxable
activities" including but not limited to the manufacture, sale or distribution of alcohol, tobacco,
or firearms; any wagering activities; or any other regulated industry, trade or profession.
30. That the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife do not reside in or obtain income from any source
within the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam or any other
territory, insular possession, possession, enclave, franchise or instrumentality of the United States,
the District of Columbia, the British Commonwealth, or the Vatican.
31. That the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are not a United States Person; United States
Resident; United States Individual; United States Corporation "citizen subject to it's jurisdiction",
or subject of the Royal Family of Great Britain, as such "words of art" are defined in the Internal
Revenue Code and other applicable United States Codes or treaties.
32. That the so-called Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution for the united States did not
repeal the Constitutional apportionment restrictions imposed on direct taxes by the Constitution
for the united States of America, Article One, Section Two, Clause Three, and Article One, Section
144
Nine, Clause Four, thus, taxes on personal property are direct taxes, not taxable by the federal
government unless apportioned according to the census of the union states.
33. That the so-called Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution for the united States was not
properly lawfully and constitutionally ratified by the States of the Union. But if it had been
properly ratified it specifies "...incomes, from whatever source derived,...".
Amendment XVI. "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from
whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to
any census or enumeration."
34. That the Secretary of the Department of the Treasury has defined and limited the tax to be
applicable to only, "...taxable income of the taxpayer from specific sources and activities..." The
income must be taxable and must come from specific sources and activities that are defined by the
Secretary.
Code of Federal Regulations ¤ 1.861- 8(a): "...The rules contained in this section apply in
determining taxable income of the taxpayer from specific sources and activities under other
sections of the Code referred to in this section as operative sections. See paragraph (f)(1) of this
section for a list and description of operative sections."
35. That the Federal Regulations make reference to 'sources' within the United States.. below are
the only sources listed from which income must derive in order for it to be taxable for the purpose
of the Income Tax.
Code of Federal Regulations 1.861-8(f)(1)
(i) Overall limitation to the foreign tax credit.
(ii) [Reserved]
(iii) DISC and FSC taxable income. (note: DISC is Direct International Sales Corp, and
FSC is a Foreign Sales Corp)
(iv) Effectively connected taxable income. Nonresident alien individuals and foreign
corporations engaged in trade or business within the United States,...
(v) Foreign base company income.
(vi) Other operative sections.
(A) "...foreign source items of tax..."
(B) "...foreign mineral income..."
(C) [Reserved]
(D) "...foreign oil and gas extraction income..."
(E) "...citizens entitled to the benefits of section 931 and the section 936 tax credit..."
(F) "...residents of Puerto Rico..."
(G) "...income tax liability incurred to the Virgin Islands..."
(H) "...income derived from Guam..."
(I) "...China Trade Act corporations..."
(J) "...income of a controlled foreign corporation..."
(K) "...income from the insurance of U.S. risks..."
(L) "...international boycott factor...attributable taxes and income under section 999..."
(M) "...income attributable to the operation of an agreement vessel under section 607 of
the Merchant Marine Act of 1936..."
36. That the item 35. list explains clearly the "gross income" involvement in light of the fact that
the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the
inclusion or exclusion of something in a law. Or simply, if a particular source is not on the list,
then it is effectively 'excluded' from the Income Tax Act and subsequently the legal definition of
'Gross Income'.
37. That the item 35. list/regulation can be described simply as a "fence". The U.S. Congress gave
the Secretary the task to encircle and delineate the only area from which "Gross Income", and
hence "taxable income", can be derived or accepted from... and the Secretary published his
145
understanding of what was expected of him in the regulations. The above list is in fact the only
definition of "sources" anywhere in the regulations. "Whatever" is within the fence is "allowed"
to be listed as "Gross Income". If it is not within the confines of the Secretary's "fence" or
"regulation", it is "exempt".
38. That some with a vested interest in taking care of our money for us, will argue that the phrase
"whatever sources" in the so-called 16th Amendment means "any and all sources"... we AGREE
that it does... any and all "sources" within the list! The Secretary has defined them, then Congress
agreed with the Secretary! And they are restricted to the above list, as it is the only list which
defines sources! An entry for Citizens with domestic income does not exist on this list!
39. That the power of the Congress and the authority it gives to the Executive Branch is limited to
the contents of the law.
40. What is not stated in the law is ALWAYS important; it is a fundamental legal principle and a
basic maxim of statutory interpretation:
"Expressio unius est exclusio alterius" (the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another)
"When certain persons or things are specified in a law, contract, or will, an intention to exclude all
others from its operation may be inferred. Under this maxim, if statute specifies one exception to
a general rule or assumes to specify the effects of a certain provision, other exceptions or effects
are excluded." (Black's, 6th ed.)
1.) Section 61 states that gross income is from 'sources' which are taxable.
2.) 26 USC ¤ 861(a), states that the following items of gross income shall be treated as income
from sources within the United States, and does not define the 'specific sources' of income from
within the U.S., that are taxable.
3.) 26 CFR ¤ 1.861 and following, are the Regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Treasury to
implement 26 USC ¤ 861, and prove that the items of gross income discussed in 26 USC ¤ 861, are
applicable only to nonresident aliens and U.S. Citizens living abroad.
41. That all of the regulations applicable to 26 USC ¤ 864, Definitions, are directed only to
nonresident aliens and foreign corporations. Significantly, the only application of the federal
income tax upon the income of U.S. Citizens in existence is with respect to:
(1) a U.S. Citizen's foreign earned income, and
(2) the income of U.S. Citizens living abroad.
42. That when you examine 861's regulations, you find the admission in 1.861-8 (a)(4), that income
must come from a specific source to be taxable. If you examine the sources in 1.861-8 (f)(1), you
will find that the domestic sources are plainly applicable to nonresident aliens and foreign
corporations. The others listed are foreign sources that U.S. citizens would definitely be taxed
upon.
43. That there is no direct mention of U.S. sources where U.S. Citizens can earn 'gross income'.
44. That of the five sources listed in (f)(1), four of them are repeated as non-exempt income
pursuant to 26 CFR ¤ 1.861-8 (T)(d)(2)(iii). And pursuant to 1.861-8 (T)(d)(2)(ii)(A), all income
that is exempt, excluded (not listed), or eliminated from the law, is exempt income. There are no
other U.S. sources listed that are applicable to U.S. citizens living and working within the U.S.
45. That since the law is plainly structured to be taxing nonresident aliens, and foreign earned
income, we must have some specific citation of law, specifically taxing U.S. citizens on their
domestic source income, as the Secretary has made the list of U.S. sources that are taxable in 26
U.S.C. ¤ 861, applicable only to nonresident aliens.
46. That the only form required to be filed by U.S. Citizens, pursuant to section 1.1-1 of the Code
of Federal Regulations, is the 2555 foreign earned income form. With regard to the filing of
returns, the only filing requirement for an individual under Subtitle A "income" tax is found in
code section 6012(a). Under section 6012(a) and its underlying regulations, "taxable income" is
limited to certain income that has been "earned" while living and working in certain foreign
countries or territories.
146
As proof of the above, under the 1980 Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) must assign an OMB approval number to any agency return that requests and
collects information from a U.S. citizen. According to OMB approval control number 1545-0067
assigned to Treasury regulations 1.1-1 "Tax imposed" and 1.6012-0 "Person required to make
returns of income" under 26 CFR part 600 to end, the required return for a U.S. citizen to report
income is not Form 1040, but Form 2555 "Foreign Earned Income." The 1040 return for the "U.S.
Individual" is merely a SUPPLEMENTAL WORKSHEET for the required Form 2555. The top of
Form 2555 instructs "attach to front of Form 1040" and "for use by U.S. citizens". Treasury
Decision 2313 (TD 2313) clarifies that the Form 1040 individual income tax return is to be used
only by the fiduciary of a nonresident alien and receiving interest and/or dividends from the stock
of domestic (US) corporations on behalf of that nonresident alien. This decision was issued in 1916
to "collectors of internal revenue" pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court under the Brushaber v.
Union Pacific R.R. decision and still stands today.
For the above reasons, the income tax under Subtitle A is not "voluntary" for those to whom it
applies, as some have asserted. It is mandatory, but only for those to whom it applies as explained
above. Since the law is limited in its application, the question of whether it is mandatory or
voluntary is superfluous. The question is to whom and under what circumstances is the law
applied? With regard to the wage tax under Subtitle C, certain legal requirements may be
considered mandatory. But only for the payor of the wages (the "employer") and even then, only
if both the "employer" and the "covered employee" has voluntarily agreed (via voluntary
application on Form W-4) to participate in the entitlement programs. Since there is no legal
requirement to have a social security number (SSN) in order to live and work in the U.S. (or
simply for the sake of having one); no legal requirement to enter a SSN on Form W-4, sign or
submit it, and; no legal requirement for an employer to obtain an employer identification number
(EIN) in order to hire workers, neither party - "employee" or "employer" - can be compelled to
participate in the entitlement programs, hence compliance under Subtitle C is correctly said to be
voluntary for those to whom the income tax under Subtitle A does NOT apply.
IRS Publication 515 and Treasury regulation 1.1441-5 explain the proper use of the Statement of
Citizenship (SOC), a copy of which is sent by the employer (who retains the original) to the IRS in
Philadelphia only, which makes sense since Philadelphia is the IRS international tax office. The
SOC authorizes (and indemnifies) the employer to stop withholding income taxes from the worker
who chooses not to have his or her taxes withheld.
47. That attempting to pass off ¤ 61 defining "Gross income" as the section of Code as the law
taxing all U.S. citizens on their U.S. source income, even if the income cannot be deemed to be
from taxable sources, is dishonest in light of the construction of the statute. Since 26 CFR ¤¤
1.861-8 (f)(1) and -8T (d)(2)(iii) state plainly the taxable sources which a U.S. Citizen must have, to
make income "Gross income" and thus "taxable income" (the latter being taxed in ¤ 1). It is no
wonder that the proper Form to be filed, pursuant to Section 1 of 26 U.S.C. and 26 CFR by a U.S.
Citizen is the 2555 Foreign Earned Income form.
48. That 'Exempt Income' is defined:
26 CFR ¤ 1.861-8T(d)(2)(ii)(A)
"In general. For purposes of this section, the term exempt income means any income
that is in whole or in part, exempt, excluded, or eliminated for federal income tax
purposes."
49. That "Exclusion" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary, in part, as follows:
"Denial of entry or admittance."
50. That right after the Secretary stated this, he plainly listed income not exempt from taxation
here as follows:
26 CFR ¤ 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii)
(iii) Income that is not considered tax exempt.
147
The following items are not considered to be exempt, eliminated, or excluded income
and, thus, may have expenses, losses, or other deductions allocated and apportioned to
them:
(A) In the case of a foreign taxpayer (including a foreign sales corporation (FSC))
computing its effectively connected income, gross income (whether domestic or foreign
source) which is not effectively connected to the conduct of a United States trade or
business;
(B) In computing the combined taxable income of a DISC or FSC and its related
supplier, the gross income of a DISC or a FSC;
(C) For all purposes under subchapter N of the Code, including the computation of
combined taxable income of a possessions corporation and its affiliates under section
936(h), the gross income of a possessions corporation for which a credit is allowed
under section 936(a); and
(D) Foreign earned income as defined in section 911 and the regulations thereunder
(however, the rules of section 1.911-6 do not require the allocation and apportionment
of certain deductions, including home mortgage interest, to foreign earned income for
purposes of determining the deductions disallowed under section 911(d)(6)).
51. That the only income listed in item 50. related to U.S. Citizens is (D)
52. That the definition of "wages" in ¤ 3401(a) to be withheld from in accordance with ¤ 3402,
excludes all remuneration paid to U.S. Citizens by employers, except income which is deemed to
be gross income under ¤ 911, or other income related to foreign and U.S. possession sources.
53. That this law confirms our position, in simple terms according to Black's Law Dictionary, that
if the income in question comes from a source "excluded" from the law, and thus not mentioned
within the law as being taxable, it cannot then meet the source requirements of ¤ 861, its
regulations, and thus section 61(a) to be "Gross income", and is by definition EXEMPT.
54. That what is not within a law is just as important as what is!
55. That the entire topic of the "Income Tax" and the statutes regarding it are built upon the
foundation of "Gross Income" as defined in ¤ 61 of the Internal Revenue Code, and that the laws
mean exactly what they say.
56. That compensation for labour and exercise of the Right to labour are personal property, and
such personal property correctly comes under the authority of the Constitution for the united
States of America, Article One, Section Two, Clause Three, and Article One, Section Nine, Clause
Four, and are, therefore, not taxable by the Federal Government as a graduated tax. Be advised:
compensation earned and exercising the Right to Labour is excluded from "Gross Income" and is
exempt from taxation under Title 26 of the United States Code, under the authority of Title 26,
Code of Federal Regulations (1939), Section 9.22(b)-1, as follows:
26 Code of Federal Regulations (1939) Section 9.22(b)-1 Exclusions from gross income -- The
following shall not be included in gross income and shall be exempt from taxation under this title:
(b)-1 Exceptions; exclusions from gross income. Certain items of income ... are exempt from tax
and may be excluded from gross income ... those items of income which are under the
Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government.
57. That the so-called Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution for the united States of America
was not ever properly ratified by the States of the union according to the conditions required by
the Constitution for the united States of America for ratification and adoption of Amendments to
the Constitution for the united States of America. That even if the so-called Sixteenth Amendment
to the Constitution for the united States of America had been properly ratified the so-called
Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution for the united States would be limited in application
only to indirect taxes.
58. That the income tax is an excise tax. (United States Supreme Court in Brushaber vs. Union
Pacific Railroad Company)
148
59. That compensation for the Affiant's labour is the Affiant's personal property, and therefore, is
not taxable by the Federal Government except by rule of apportionment.
60. That an excise tax CANNOT be imposed upon a natural-born Man or Woman upon the Land,
Citizen measured by his/her compensation for labour because such a tax would be a direct
capitation tax, subject to the rule of apportionment privilege.
61. That the requirement to pay an excise tax involves the exercise of a privilege.
62. That the Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are not exercising any taxable privileges.
63. That the Affiant provides for the Affiant's and his families existence by labouring in a
non-taxable craft of common Right, to wit:
"The Citizen, unlike the corporation, can not be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The
corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the
Citizen's Right to live and own property are Natural Rights for the enjoyment of which an excise
can not be imposed ... We believe that the conclusion is well justified that a tax laid directly upon
income or property, real or personal may well be regarded as a tax upon the property which
produces the income." Redfield v. Fisher, 292 Oregon Supreme Court, 813 at 817, 819 (1939)
64. That the Affiant's compensation for labour constitutes the fruits of the Affiant's labour, and as
such is the Affiant's substance and personal property, of which the Federal Government may not
deprive the Affiant of any portion by appropriating said property against the Affiant's will.
65. That the Victory Tax Act of 1942 [ 56 Statutes at Large, Chapter 619 page 884. Oct. 21, 1941 ]
which implemented "withholding" and 1040 Returns requirements, stated: Section 476 "The taxes
imposed by this subchapter shall not apply with respect to any taxable year after the date of
cession of hostilities in the present War, i.e., World War II."
66. That the Victory Tax Act and its provision for withholding was repealed pursuant to 58
Statutes at Large, Chapter 210, Section 6(a), page 235.
67. That there are only four things that can possibly be the subject matter of any tax whether it's
local, state or federal:
(1) People (capitation, "head" and poll taxes - a direct tax)
(2) Property by reason of ownership (real and personal property taxes - a direct tax)
(3) Revenue taxable activities (such as the manufacture, sale or distribution of alcohol, tobacco or
firearms - an indirect tax)
(4) A grant of privilege (for example, state registered corporate charters granting permission to do
business - is a privilege by the state's definition - an indirect tax)
68. That taxes on the first two types are called direct taxes while the third and fourth types are
known as indirect taxes. This definition is not derived from what the tax is popularly or formally
named nor from how the tax is measured. This definition can only come from its "subject."
69. That there has never been a "head" tax since the Constitution was instituted because
capitation taxes are expressly forbidden by Article 1, Section 9, paragraph 4. This type of tax is
"outlawed" at all levels. That while property taxes are legal in nearly all state and local
jurisdictions, they are not legal on the federal level. That the federal government must restrict
itself to the indirect class of taxes, duties, imposts and excises.
"The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to
certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce.
The income is not the subject of the tax; it is the basis for determining the amount of tax." House
Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, pg. 2580
70. That the courts have clearly established that the misleadingly named "income tax" is an excise
tax and, therefore, is an indirect tax. The Supreme Court case, Russell v. U.S., 369 U.S. 749, at 765
(1962), states that: "'Taxable income' can only be derived from revenue taxable activities.
Statements alleging some sort of taxable activity must be made in order to support the legal
conclusion that the accused had 'taxable income,' etc., or the indictment is invalid and the court
does not have authority to hold a trial."
149
71. That the Supreme Court's unanimous rulings in the following cases have never been reversed
or overturned: Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 240 U.S. 1; Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.,
240 U.S. 103; and Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 The Court in Brushaber and Stanton held
that the Sixteenth Amendment (the "income tax" amendment), as correctly interpreted, and the
"income tax" itself WHEN CORRECTLY APPLIED, are constitutional because they are restricted
to indirect taxes. Which means that when incorrectly interpreted and incorrectly applied the
"income tax" is unconstitutional.
72. That in Flint, the Court held that indirect taxes are never upon any kind of property, money or
otherwise, but only upon particular activities, in which the resulting income is used to measure the
tax on the taxable activity. "Income taxes" are only named such because the income connected
with the activity is used as the standard or yardstick by which the tax upon the activity is
measured. Under the Internal Revenue Code, an activity must be taxable for revenue purposes as
opposed to strictly regulatory purposes. "[Excise taxes are] taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale,
or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations,
and upon corporate privileges." Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, 7th Ed., p.680 as cited in
Flint, supra, 151.
73. That facts regarding the exercise of a revenue taxable privilege or activity must exist in order
to support the legal position that a person had "taxable income," or was "obligated to pay", or
was "required by law to file tax returns," or is even to be considered a "taxpayer".
74. That there is a distinct class officially recognized as "non-taxpayers" who are not subject to
the jurisdiction of Internal Revenue statutes. "Jurisdiction is essentially the authority conferred by
Congress to decide a given type of case one way or another." Hagans v Levine, 415 U.S. 533
(1974).
"Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven." Hagins v Lavine, supra note 3 "No sanction
can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction." Standard v Olson, 74 S.Ct. 768 "It has also been
held that jurisdiction must be affirmatively shown and will not be presumed." Special Indem.
Fund v Prewitt, 205 F2d 306, 201 OK. 308.
75. That the IRS, in order to define Affiant and/or Affiant's lawful wife as a "taxpayer", must
assert jurisdiction.which Affiant refutes. The IRS must prove that Affiant falls under its
jurisdictional influence.
76. That should the Internal Revenue Service violate Affiant's and Affiant's lawful wife's rights
under color of law and, with the complicity of the courts, forcing jurisdiction upon Affiant, they
still cannot prevail; first, because of the lack of implementing regulations, second, because Affiant
is not engaged in any revenue taxable activities and, third, through the emphatic assertion of
Affiant's correct and proper legal status.
77. That in law the legal definition is the only authoritative one. About eighty court decisions and
Treasury decisions have used the terms "includes" and "including" in a restrictive sense meaning
that when they are used the terms denote ONLY those items that follow it. Further, Black's Law
Dictionary, the "handbook" of legal definition defines "include" as follows:
"Include. (Lat. Inclaudere, to shut in, keep within) To confine within, hold as an enclosure, take
in, attain, shut up, contain, inclose, comprise, comprehend, embrase, involve. Term may,
according to context, express an enlargement and have the meaning of and or in addition to, or
merely specify a particular thing already included within general words theretofore used.
'Including' within statute is interpreted as a word of enlargement or of illustrative application as
well as a word of limitation." Premier Products Co. v. Cameron, 240 Or. 123, 400 P.2d 227,228.
78. That Black's Law Dictionary says when the term "include" is used it expands to take in all of
the items that are listed but only those items and no others. The importance of this limiting sense
of the term is apparent when you look at many of the Internal Revenue Code definitions.
Section 7701 (a) (9) : UNITED STATES. - The term "United States" when used in a geographic
sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.
150
79. That in the very next definition the Code defines the term "State."
Section 7701 (a) (10) : STATE. - The term ‘State’ shall be construed to include the District of
Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out the provisions of this title. Based on
the legal definition of the term "include," then "State" means ONLY the District of Columbia. If
we substitute this in the definition of "United States" then the code is limited in its jurisdiction to
only the District of Columbia.
80. That to show that the IRS knows precisely what it’s saying and is very specific in its
application of these definitions, the Code follows form when it defines "State, United States, and
Citizen" in Chapter 21 - Federal Insurance Contributions Act or FICA.
Section 3121 (e) : STATE, UNITED STATES, AND CITIZEN. - For the purposes of this chapter (1)
STATE. - The term 'State' includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Somoa. (2) UNITED STATES. - The term 'United States'
when used in the geographic sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands,
Guam, and American Somoa. The IRS insists the Code is absolutely correct so this is exactly what
it must mean. Therefore, the provisions of Title 26 apply only to the District of Columbia and the
federal territories.
81. That the Code defines 'employer' in Chapter 24 - COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT
SOURCE ON WAGES.
Section 3401 (d) : EMPLOYER. - For purposes of this chapter, the term 'employer' means the
person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the
employee of such person....
82. That if you have an 'employee' then you are an employer. There is a conspicuous absence of
the term "include" in this definition?
Section 3401 (c) : EMPLOYEE. - For purposes of this chapter, the term 'employee' includes an
officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision
thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the
foregoing. The term 'employee' also includes the officer of a corporation.
83. That to be an "employee" you must work for the government or be an officer of a
corporation. The term "include" shows up here and again, if we substitute this idea into the
definition of 'employer' a company is most likely NOT an employer because none of the people
working for companies are employees of the government.
Section 7701 (a) (3) : CORPORATION. - The term 'corporation' includes associations, joint-stock
companies, and insurance companies.
84. That further investigation shows that the corporation must be formed in, be doing business in,
or receiving income from the District of Columbia or be classified as a "foreign corporation."
Those who are not incorporated are covered in the Code as well.
Section 7701 (a) : TRADE OR BUSINESS. - The term 'trade or business' includes the performance
of the functions of a public office.
85. That the Courts have drawn a distinct line between "income" and "wages." "Income, within
the meaning of the 16th Amendment and the Revenue Act, means gain ... and, in such connection,
gain means profit ... proceeding from property severed from capital, however invested or
employed and coming in, received or drawn by the taxpayer for his separate use, benefit and
disposal....
86. That income is neither a wage nor compensation for any type of labor." Stapler v. U.S., 21 F.
Supp. 737, at 739. "There is a clear distinction between ‘profit’ and "wages", or a compensation
for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the
law. The word "profit", as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment
-- a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor." Oliver v. Halstead, 86 S.E.
Rep 2nd 85e9 (1955) "...[W]hatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential
feature of gain to the recipient.... If there is not gain there is not income.... Congress has taxed
151
income not compensation." Connor v. U.S., 303 F. Supp. 1187 (1969)
87. That each time a company and/or its executives turns over "employee" money to the IRS
under a Notice of Levy they are unwittingly aiding and abetting the IRS in the performance of an
illegal act. To understand why we need to look to the Code provisions relating to Levy and
Distraint. Specifically, Subchapter D - Seizure of Property for Collection of Taxes. Under Section
6331 - Levy and Distraint is the following:
Section 6331 (a) AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY. - If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or
refuses to pay the same within 10 days after the notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the
Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of
the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under
section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the
payment of such a tax... (A lien can only exist by order of a Court after "due process" has been
extended to the accused under law.)
Section 6331 (a) cont'd AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY. - ...Levy may be made upon the accrued
salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of
Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or District of Columbia, by
serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in 3401 (d)) of such officer, employee, or
elected official.... (on which there is a lien).
88. That when we take the time to look closely at this "power" we see from the first part of it that
the Secretary's power is delimited and confined to those who are "liable to pay any tax." As
further evidence of the limited power of the Secretary to issue Notices of Levy (to such person on
which there is a lien), the second part of sec. 6331(a) is clearly aimed at government employees
and is actually the only part of the section that even mentions the filing of a notice. Since the IRS
adamantly asserts that the Code is completely correct in its script Affiant can only conclude that
the power to issue a Notice of Levy applies only to government employees and therefore, as a
"foreign corporation", by Code definition, no one else is charged with any responsibility for the
perfection of such overextended, misapplied powers and bogus jurisdictional claims.
"As in our intercourse with our fellow-men certain principles of morality are assumed to exist,
without which society would be impossible, so certain inherent rights lie at the foundation of all
action, and upon a recognition of them alone can free institutions be maintained. These inherent
rights have never been more happily expressed than in the Declaration of Independence, that
evangel of liberty to the people: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident' - that is, so plain that
their truth is recognized upon their mere statement 'that all men are endowed' not by edicts of
emperors, or decrees of Parliament, or acts of Congress, but 'by their Creator with certain
unalienable rights' that is, rights which cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away
except as punishment for crime 'and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness, and to secure these' not grant them but secure them 'governments are instituted among
men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
"Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to
pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in
any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or
develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment.
"The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous
in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must, therefore,
be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let
or hindrance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a
distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom
which they claim as their birthright.
"...The property which every man has is his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other
property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the
152
strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in
what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of the most
sacred property." Butcher's Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, (1883)
89. That in two other cases, the Supreme Court said: "Included in the right of personal liberty and
the right of private property - partaking of the nature of each - is the right to make contracts for
the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which
labor and others services are exchanged for money or other forms of property." Coppage v.
Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, at 14 (1915) ". . . Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own labor,
as generally admitted; and that no other person can rightfully deprive him of those fruits, and
appropriate them against his will . . ." Antelope, 23 U.S. 66, at 120
90. That in 1913, four years after Congress first introduced the income tax amendment, Philander
Knox, a Pittsburgh attorney and then Secretary of State, declared the 16th Amendment duly
ratified, despite the protests and subsequent research which reveals proof to the contrary.
Congress intended that somebody should pay a tax. Congress has the Constitutional authority to
tax, but only through specific types of taxes.
91. That therefore, since Congress and the Courts have defined it as an excise tax, Affiant and
Affiant's lawful wife have no argument with the tax itself and do not protest against the income
tax. However, it is one thing to protest a tax and another thing entirely to protest extortion
committed under the guise, pretext, sham, or subterfuge of the unlawful unconstitutional
misapplication of the revenue laws against Affiant and/or Affiant's lawful wife who are neither
subject to nor liable for such indirect taxes. This type of extortion is prohibited by the 5th
amendment "due process of law" clause, and the extortion clause of the Internal Revenue Code in
Section 7214.
92. That Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are NOT tax protesters. That Affiant and Affiant's lawful
wife are protesting against the unconstitutional and unlawful MISAPPLICATION of the revenue
laws and are not protesting the tax itself in its proper and lawful application as an excise tax
levyed upon "those made liable" who are engaged in taxable activities and privileges deriving
"gross income" from the specific "sources" named by the Secretary of the Department of the
Treasury.
93. That the IRS was not created by Congress. It is not an organization found under the
organization of the Department of the Treasury in Title 31 United States Code with the other
agencies of the Department of the Treasury. One of the organizations known as the IRS was
created as a trust in the Philippines ("Bureau of Internal Revenue," Trust fund #1, Philippine
special fund; 31 USC 1321) under the Department of Finance and Justice. Another trust fund,
Trust fund #62, Puerto Rico special fund, was created for "Internal Revenue." Title 26 United
States Code (Internal Revenue Code) specifically defines the jurisdiction under which it is effective
as only pertaining to the District of Columbia and its territories and possessions.
94. That an agency's failure to publish any document (regardless of how named by the agency)
which is designed to implement or prescribe law is a "rule" which is void and unenforceable.
95. That within an agency, "instructions" may be promulgated and distributed to agency officers
and employees informing them as to the manner and method of implementing and enforcing any
particular law. If by chance these "instructions" likewise meet the definition of a "rule" as defined
by ¤ 551, and if the same be "substantive" as prescribed by ¤ 552, they must be published in the
Federal Register. Several cases have found such "instructions" to agency employees void for
non-publication.
Case authority clearly shows that "instructions" given to agency personnel which command the
performance of an act by a member of the public or which limit entitlement to statutory benefits
are subject to the publication requirement. If such "rules" found in agency instructions to agency
personnel must be published, then likewise similar "instructions" given directly by the agency to
the public must also be published on the grounds that the same similarly are "rules."
153
96. That it is essential for a federal employee to possess delegated authority to perform any
particular act; the absence of delegated authority means that the act in question was beyond the
scope of the employee's duties, and therefore unlawful.
The necessity for a federal employee to have delegated authority to act not only is shown in the
above cases, it also manifests itself in cases under the Federal Torts Claims Act (herein "FTCA"),
28 U.S.C., ¤1346(b). Under this law, the United States is liable for torts committed by its
employees if so committed within the scope of their employment. If the act in question was not
committed in the scope of employment, the employee is liable and the United States is not.
A variety of cases deciding FTCA claims show instances where the United States is held not liable
for its employees torts. In Paly v. United States, 125 F.Supp. 798 (D.Md. 1954), a soldier detailed as
a military funeral escort was driving his own car to a funeral and was involved in an accident.
Since the soldier lacked express orders to do so, his tort was held to be outside the scope of his
employment and the United States was not liable. In Jones v. F.B.I., 139 F.Supp. 38, 42 (D.Md.
1956), it was alleged that certain FBI agents had stolen or converted property belonging to the
plaintiff. The court held that if such were true, the agents "were not 'acting within the scope of
[their] office or employment'," and the United States could not be liable in tort. In James v.
United States, 467 F.2d 832 (4th Cir. 1972), a reservist was involved in a car accident on his return
from an annual field training exercise; since this travel was not within the scope of his
employment, the government was held not liable for damages. In another accident case involving
an Army truck, White v. Hardy, 678 F.2d 485, 487 (4th Cir. 1982), the driver was found to have no
authority to drive the truck when the accident happened, thus his acts were beyond the scope of
his employment and the United States was not liable ("There was substantial evidence that
Sergeant Hardy was not given the requisite express authority to use the government vehicle
involved in the collision"). In Hughes v. United States, 662 F.2d 219 (4th Cir. 1981), the United
States was held not liable for child molestation committed by one of its employees, a postal
worker. In Trerice v. Summons, 755 F.2d 1081 (4th Cir. 1985), the United States was held not
liable for the wrongful death of one serviceman committed by another. And in Thigpen v. United
States, 800 F.2d 393 (4th Cir. 1986), the court held the government not liable under the FTCA for
the sexual assault of some girls by one of its employees.
Cases from other jurisdictions also demonstrate that for an act to be within the government
employee's scope of employment, it must have been authorized by a regulation or some other
written document. For example, in Mider v. United States, 322 F.2d 193 (6th Cir. 1963), a FTCA
claim was being asserted against the United States for damages arising from an accident involving
a drunken Air Force serviceman. To define the serviceman's authority, written regulations were
consulted to determine whether the act of driving the government's car was authorized. Finding
that the regulations did not permit use of the vehicle on this occasion, the serviceman was found
not to be acting within the scope of his employment. In Bettis v. United States, 635 F.2d 1144 (5th
Cir. 1981), a soldier drove a truck off a military base without authority and was involved in an
accident; his act was held to be beyond his authority and thus the United States was not liable in
tort. In Turner v. United States, 595 F.Supp. 708 (W.D.La. 1984), a recruiter conducted an
unclothed physical examination of some potential females enlistees, which caused them to sue
under the FTCA. In finding that there were no regulations either permitting or requiring such
examinations, the United States was found not liable. See also Doggett v. United States, 858 F.2d
555 (9th Cir. 1988), and Lutz v. United States, 685 F.2d 1178 (9th Cir. 1982).
Thus the above cases adequately demonstrate that a government employee must have some
specific delegated authority, based upon statutes, regulations or delegation orders, in order to be
authorized to act in the premises. The absence of such authority, when challenged, therefore
requires a holding that the employee's acts were unauthorized and thus beyond the scope of his
employment.
97. That a plain reading of ¤7608 reveals that the section itself conveys authority to nobody other
154
than the Secretary; the Secretary, in turn, must authorize agents and this calls for the issuance of
delegation orders. Under the repealed regulation 301.7608-1, it is obvious that some type of
authority had been conveyed to the Commissioner, but here even he had to issue delegation orders
appointing agents. Thus, to follow the flow of authority under ¤7608, it is essential to consult
Treasury Department Orders and Commissioner's Delegation Orders.
In 1946, the Administrative Procedure Act was adopted and the same required federal agencies to
publish in the Federal Register statements of their central and field organizational structures as
well as the methods by which their functions were channeled (delegation orders); see 5 U.S.C.,
¤552. It is acknowledged by both Treasury and I.R.S. that these items must be so published; see 31
C.F.R. ¤1.3(a), and 26 C.F.R., ¤601.702(a). In fact, it is acknowledged that anything concerning or
affecting the American public must be published. In 1953, Revenue Ruling 2 (1953-1 CB 484) was
issued and it required all divisions or units of the I.R.S. to publish in the Federal Register any item
of concern to the public. This was more clearly expressed in Rev. Proc. 55-1 (1955-2 CB 897) as
follows:
"It shall be the policy to publish for public information all statements of
practice and procedure issued primarily for internal use, and, hence,
appearing in internal management documents, which affect rights or duties of
taxpayers or other members of the public under the Internal Revenue Code
and related statutes."
That which is expressed above currently manifests itself within 26 C.F.R., ¤601.601(d)(2)(b), which
reads as follows:
"A 'Revenue Procedure' is a statement of procedure that affects the rights or
duties of taxpayers or other members of the public under the Code and
related statutes or information that, although not necessarily affecting the
rights and duties of the public, should be a matter of public knowledge."
Before commencing with a review of "modern" TDOs, it might perhaps be useful to examine older
delegation orders and TDOs issued before and during the time of the 1939 Code; by doing so, it
may be seen how authority from the President and Secretary has been delegated. For example,
Executive Order 6166, dated June 10, 1933, stated as follows:
"All functions now exercised by the Bureau of Prohibition of the Department
of Justice with respect to the granting of permits under the national
prohibition laws are transferred to the Division of Internal Revenue in the
Treasury Department.
"The Bureaus of Internal Revenue and of Industrial Alcohol of the Treasury
Department are consolidated in a Division of Internal Revenue, at the head of
which shall be a Commissioner of Internal Revenue."
Executive Order No. 6639, dated March 10, 1934, stated as follows:
"1.(a) The Bureau of Industrial Alcohol and the Office of Commissioner of
Industrial Alcohol are abolished, and the authority, rights, privileges, powers
and duties conferred and imposed by law upon the Commissioner of
Industrial Alcohol are transferred to and shall be held, exercised, and
performed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and his assistants,
agents, and inspectors, under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury."
And TDO No. 143, dated December 6, 1951, provided as follows:
"By virtue of the authority vested in me as Secretary of the Treasury by
Reorganization Plan No. 26 of 1950, there are hereby transferred to the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue the functions and duties now performed
by collectors of Internal Revenue in connection with tobacco and other taxes
imposed under Chapter 15 of the Internal Revenue Code.
"The functions and duties herein transferred to the Commissioner of Internal
155
Revenue may, at his discretion, be delegated to subordinates in the Bureau of
Internal Revenue service in such manner as the Commissioner shall from time
to time direct."
Thus each delegation order must be examined to determine the authority conveyed therein.
In 1949, Congress enacted a law authorizing the President to reorganize the executive
departments; see 63 Stat. 203, chap. 226, codified at 5 U.S.C., ¤901, et seq. Pursuant to this
authority, the President promulgated Reorganization Plan No. 26 of 1950 (15 Fed. Reg. 4935, 64
Stat. 1280), which restructured the entire Treasury Department via the following:
"[T]here are hereby transferred to the Secretary of the Treasury all functions
of all other officers of the Department of the Treasury and all functions of all
agencies and employees of such Department."
By this reorganization plan, all statutory and delegated authority of anyone in the Treasury
Department was immediately divested and placed into the hands of the Secretary. Thereafter,
Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1952 (17 Fed. Reg. 2243, 66 Stat. 823) reorganized the Bureau of
Internal Revenue, the name of which was changed to the Internal Revenue Service the following
year; see T.D. 6038, 1953-2 CB 443.
Based upon the above reorganization plans, on March 15, 1952, the Secretary issued TDO No.
150, which authorized the continued performance of functions by Treasury officers and agents
until changed by subsequent order. This order established a series of later orders, all of which deal
with and concern administration of the internal revenue laws.
A separate brief lists the TDOs issued since the reorganization plan which are in 150 series;
citation as to where each order is published is also provided. A review of these TDOs discloses that
most of them concern only organizational changes made to the I.R.S. Insofar as authority granted
pursuant to ¤7608 is concerned, of those which were published, only TDO No. 150-42 could
possibly embody the criminal enforcement powers to which ¤7608 relates.
Based upon the above, the process of determining what agent has been delegated ¤7608 authority
thus requires examination of all published CDOs issued by the Commissioner. A list enumerating
every published CDO from 1954 to the present is contained in a separate brief; by review of these
various CDOs, it is possible to trace the authority which is the subject of ¤7608.
The only possible CDOs which could delegate ¤7608 authority are numbered 31, 33 and 34. On
April 30, 1956, CDO No. 31 was issued delegating to the Assistant Commissioner and the Director
of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division the authority to administer and enforce chapters 51, 52
and 53 of the Code (the "ATF" chapters), in addition to a few other functions. A few months later,
CDOs No. 33 and 34 were issued and these orders also related to alcohol and tobacco taxes. Once
these units of the I.R.S. had been delegated these enforcement responsibilities, Congress thereafter
in 1958 created ¤7608, and the regulation at 301.7608-1 was promulgated in 1959. Below is a list
containing the cites where these and subsequent revisions of these orders were published.
CDO No. 31:
(a) Original, 21 Fed. Reg. 3083, 1956-1 CB 1015.
(b) Rev. 1, 34 Fed. Reg. 87, 1969-1 CB 379.
(c) Rev. 2, 35 Fed. Reg. 16808, 1970-2 CB 487.
(d) Rev. 3, 36 Fed. Reg. 18678, 1971-2 CB 524.
(e) Rev. 4, 36 Fed. Reg. 22607, 1971-2 CB 525.
CDO No. 33:
(a) Original, 21 Fed. Reg. 4415, 1956-2 CB 1375.
CDO No. 34:
(a) Original, 21 Fed. Reg. 5851, 1956-2 CB 1375.
(b) Revoked, 38 Fed. Reg. 33407, 1973-2 CB 462.
As can be seen from these orders, the same allowed for the seizure and forfeiture of property and
the enforcement of the criminal laws. Logically, it is these orders which permitted the
156
promulgation of the regulation at 301.7608-1.
The ATF Division of the I.R.S. was the unit which was responsible for the administration and
enforcement of the laws which were the subject of CDOs No. 31, 33 and 34. This ended with the
creation of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms via TDO No. 221 on June 6, 1972; see 37
Fed. Reg. 116696, 1972-1 CB 777. Among other administration and enforcement functions
transferred to BATF via this order were the following:
"(a) Chapters 51, 52 and 53 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and
sections 7652 and 7653 of such Code insofar as they relate to the commodities
subject to tax under such chapters;
"(b) Chapters 61 to 80, inclusive, of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954,
insofar as they relate to the activities administered and enforced with respect
to chapters 51, 52 and 53."
About 2 1/2 years later, the Secretary issued TDO No. 221-3 (40 Fed. Reg. 1084, 1975-1 CB 758)
which delegated to the BATF the authority to administer and enforce "chapter 35 and chapter 40
and 61 through 80, inclusive, of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 insofar as they relate to
activities administered and enforced with respect to chapter 35." Chapter 35 deals with wagering
taxes and chapter 40 concerns occupational taxes related to wagering. Some 1 1/2 years later, TDO
No. 221-3 (Rev. 1) was issued. The only real, detectable distinction between the former and latter
orders was the inclusion of the following phrase in the latter:
"The Commissioner may call upon the Director for assistance when it is
necessary to exercise any of the enforcement authority described in section
7608 of the Internal Revenue Code."
But, on January 14, 1977, the Secretary transferred back to the I.R.S. the enforcement duties
relating to wagering via TDO No. 221-3 (Rev. 2). Thereafter, the authority of BATF encompassed
chapters 40, 51, 52 and 53 of the 1954 Code in addition to the authority to enforce other
non-Code laws. It is of great significance that the repeal of regulation 301.7608-1 occurred shortly
after the creation of the BATF. The authority of BATF agents to exercise the functions under
¤7608 is today found in 27 C.F.R., ¤70.28.
In summary, ¤7608 requires delegations from the Secretary to enforcement agents. In reference to
¤7608(a), it has been shown above that this "ATF" authority has flowed through the ATF unit
within I.R.S., ultimately to be passed onto the BATF. But, in the search for authority under
¤7608(b), a review of all published TDOs and CDOs reveals that there appears to have been no
such delegation. Thus, if a Special Agent is conducting any investigation pursuant to the authority
of ¤7608, that investigation encompasses violations only of the alcohol, tobacco and firearms tax
laws, and there is NO apparent authority to conduct any federal income tax investigation which is
possessed by a Special Agent.
98. That Affiant filed FOIA requests asking the IRS for specific documents which gave the IRS the
authority to conduct an investigation of a Citizen of Arizona. The IRS could not, and did not,
produce any such documentation. We noticed Special Agent Shupnik and Assistant U.S. Attorney
Winerip to produce their credentials and documentation of their authority to conduct such an
investigation; they refused because they could not as no such documents exists.
99. That of all the circuits, the Ninth Circuit has addressed jurisdictional issues more than any of
the rest. In United States v. Bateman, 34 F. 86 (N.D.Cal. 1888), it was determined that the United
States did not have jurisdiction to prosecute for a murder committed at the Presidio because
California had never ceded jurisdiction; see also United States v. Tully, 140 F. 899 (D.Mon. 1905).
But later, California ceded jurisdiction for the Presidio to the United States, and it was held in
United States v. Watkins, 22 F.2d 437 (N.D.Cal. 1927), that this enabled the U.S. to maintain a
murder prosecution. See also United States v. Holt, 168 F. 141 (W.D.Wash. 1909), United States v.
Lewis, 253 F. 469 (S.D.Cal. 1918), and United States v. Wurtzbarger, 276 F. 753 (D.Or. 1921).
Because the U.S. owned and had a state cession of jurisdiction for Fort Douglas in Utah, it was
157
held that the U.S. had jurisdiction for a rape prosecution in Rogers v. Squier, 157 F.2d 948 (9th
Cir. 1946). But, without a cession, the U.S. has no jurisdiction; see Arizona v. Manypenny, 445
F.Supp. 1123 (D.Ariz. 1977).
The above cases from the U.S. Supreme Court and federal appellate courts set forth the rule that
in criminal prosecutions, the government, as the party seeking to establish the existence of federal
jurisdiction, must prove U.S. ownership of the property in question and a state cession of
jurisdiction. This same rule manifests itself in state cases. State courts are courts of general
jurisdiction and in a state criminal prosecution, the state must only prove that the offense was
committed within the state and a county thereof. If a defendant contends that only the federal
government has jurisdiction over the offense, he, as proponent for the existence of federal
jurisdiction, must likewise prove U.S. ownership of the property where the crime was committed
and state cession of jurisdiction.
Examples of the operation of this principle are numerous. In Arizona, the State has jurisdiction
over federal lands in the public domain, the state not having ceded jurisdiction of that property to
the U.S.; see State v. Dykes, 114 Ariz. 592, 562 P.2d 1090 (1977). In California, if it is not proved
by a defendant in a state prosecution that the state has ceded jurisdiction, it is presumed the state
does have jurisdiction over a criminal offense; see People v. Brown, 69 Cal. App.2d 602, 159 P.2d
686 (1945). If the cession exists, the state has no jurisdiction; see People v. Mouse, 203 Cal. 782,
265 P. 944 (1928). In Montana, the state has jurisdiction over property if it is not proved there is a
state cession of jurisdiction to the U.S.; see State ex rel Parker v. District Court, 147 Mon. 151, 410
P.2d 459 (1966); the existence of a state cession of jurisdiction to the U.S. ousts the state of
jurisdiction; see State v. Tully, 31 Mont. 365, 78 P. 760 (1904). The same applies in Nevada; see
State v. Mack, 23 Nev. 359, 47 P. 763 (1897), and Pendleton v. State, 734 P.2d 693 (Nev. 1987); it
applies in Oregon (see State v. Chin Ping, 91 Or. 593, 176 P. 188 (1918), and State v. Aguilar, 85
Or.App. 410, 736 P.2d 620 (1987)); and in Washington (see State v. Williams, 23 Wash.App. 694,
598 P.2d 731 (1979)).
In People v. Hammond, 1 Ill.2d 65, 115 N.E.2d 331 (1953), a burglary of an IRS office was held to
be within state jurisdiction, the court holding that the defendant was required to prove existence
of federal jurisdiction by U.S. ownership of the property and state cession of jurisdiction. In two
cases from Michigan, larcenies committed at U.S. post offices which were rented were held to be
within state jurisdiction; see People v. Burke, 161 Mich. 397, 126 N.W. 446 (1910), and People v.
Van Dyke, 276 Mich. 32, 267 N.W. 778 (1936). See also In re Kelly, 311 Mich. 596, 19 N.W.2d 218
(1945). In Kansas City v. Garner, 430 S.W.2d 630 (Mo.App. 1968), state jurisdiction over a theft
offense occurring in a federal building was upheld, and the court stated that a defendant had to
show federal jurisdiction by proving U.S. ownership of the building and a cession of jurisdiction
from the state to the United States. A similar holding was made for a theft at a U.S. missile site in
State v. Rindall, 146 Mon. 64, 404 P.2d 327 (1965). In Pendleton v. State, 734 P.2d 693 (Nev. 1987),
the state court was held to have jurisdiction over a D.U.I. committed on federal lands, the
defendant having failed to show U.S. ownership and state cession of jurisdiction.
In People v. Gerald, 40 Misc.2d 819, 243 N.Y.S.2d 1001 (1963), the state was held to have
jurisdiction of an assault at a U.S. post office since the defendant did not meet his burden of
showing presence of federal jurisdiction; and because a defendant failed to prove title and
jurisdiction in the United States for an offense committed at a customs station, state jurisdiction
was upheld in People v. Fisher, 97 A.D.2d 651, 469 N.Y.S.2d 187 (A.D. 3 Dept. 1983). The proper
method of showing federal jurisdiction in state court is demonstrated by the decision in People v.
Williams, 136 Misc.2d 294, 518 N.Y.S.2d 751 (1987). This rule was likewise enunciated in State v.
Burger, 33 Ohio App.3d 231, 515 N.E.2d 640 (1986), a case involving a D.U.I. offense committed
on a road near a federal arsenal.
In Kuerschner v. State, 493 P.2d 1402 (Okl.Cr.App. 1972), the state was held to have jurisdiction
of a drug sales offense occurring at an Air Force Base, the defendant not having attempted to
158
prove federal jurisdiction by showing title and jurisdiction of the property in question in the
United States; see also Towry v. State, 540 P.2d 597 (Okl.Cr.App. 1975). Similar holdings for
murders committed at U.S. post offices were made in State v. Chin Ping, 91 Or. 593, 176 P. 188
(1918), and in United States v. Pate, 393 F.2d 44 (7th Cir. 1968). Another Oregon case, State v.
Aguilar, 85 Or.App. 410, 736 P.2d 620 (1987), demonstrates this rule. Finally, in Curry v. State, 111
Tex. Cr. 264, 12 S.W.2d 796 (1928), it was held that, in the absence of proof that the state had
ceded jurisdiction of a place to the United States, the state courts had jurisdiction over an offense.
100. That in federal criminal prosecutions involving jurisdictional type crimes, the government
must prove the existence of federal jurisdiction by showing U.S. ownership of the place where the
crime was committed and state cession of jurisdiction. If the government contends for the power
to criminally prosecute for an offense committed outside "its jurisdiction," it must prove an
extra-territorial application of the statute in question as well as a constitutional foundation
supporting the same. Absent this showing, no federal prosecution can be commenced for offenses
committed outside "its jurisdiction."
"Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven." Hagins v Lavine, supra note 3 "No sanction
can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction." Standard v Olson, 74 S.Ct. 768 "It has also been
held that jurisdiction must be affirmatively shown and will not be presumed." Special Indem.
Fund v Prewitt, 205 F2d 306, 201 OK. 308.
101. That a citizen or alien domiciled within and making a living within one of the 50 states of the
Union, has never been made liable by Congress for the payment of the income tax under title 26,
Subtitle A. Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife have NO liability under the law to file or pay the
so-called income tax. The so-called income tax is unlawful and unconstitutional as applied to the
Citizens and others Domiciled within the territorial boundaries of the Union States who earn a
living within the Union States and are not engaged in excise taxable activities.
102. That there are three sections of the IRC that address the making or filing of returns or
statements: Sections 6001, 6011(a) and 6012(a):
Section 6001
This section states, in relevant part ;
"Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for the collection thereof, shall keep such
records, render such statements, make such returns ..."
-- and
"Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary it is necessary, he may require any person, by notice
served upon such person or by regulations, to make such returns, render such statements, or keep
such records..."
Therefore, Section 6001 clearly does not create a requirement for every person to file, but only
specific individuals (i.e., those made liable). This section does not, however, establish the liability
but merely presumes it
Section 6011(a)
This section states, in relevant part,
"When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax
imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement ..."
-- and
"Every person required to make a return or statement shall include therein the information
required by such forms or regulations."
Similar to Section 6001, 6011(a) applies only to certain individuals and a liability is not established
but presumed in this section.
Section 6012(a)
This section states, in relevant part,
"Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following: (1)(A)
Every individual having for the taxable year gross income ..."
159
Under this section, an "individual" is required to file under specific circumstances with respect to
subtitle A, and the liability for any tax under subtitle A is established elsewhere in the IRC (see
below). In other words, the Section 6012(a) requirement for returns to be made applies only to
those who are made liable under subtitle A.
Therefore, it is clear from this section, as well as those previously cited, that the requirement to file
is not an all-encompassing one, but is directly related to an explicit liability for a tax.
103. That the sections of the IRC which actually establish a liability for a tax are as follows:
... Under Subtitle A (Income Taxes)
a. Section 402(d)(1)(D) makes liable for a separate tax the recipient of lump sum distributions
from employee benefit plans.
Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are not a recipient of a lump sum distribution from any employee
benefit plan.
b. Section 1461 makes liable every person required to deduct and withhold any tax under
Subchapter B.
Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife do not deduct and withhold any tax under Subchapter B.
... Under Subtitle B (Estate and Gift Taxes)
c. Section 3405(d)(1) makes liable the payor of a designated distribution from a pension or
annuity.
Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are not a payor of a distribution from any pension or annuity.
d. Section 3505(a) and (b) make liable a lender, surety, or other person that pays wages directly to
an employee and that is withholding.
Affiant and Affiant's wife do not pay wages to any employees.
... Under Subtitle D (Miscellaneous Excise Taxes)
e. Section 4401(c) makes liable each person who is engaged in the business of accepting wagers.
Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are not engaged in the business of accepting wagers.
f. Section 4980(b) makes liable an employer maintaining a qualified plan.
Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are not an employer maintaining a qualified plan.
... Under Subtitle E (Alcohol, Tobacco, and Certain Other Excise Taxes)
g. Section 5005 makes liable the distiller or importer of distilled spirits.
Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are not a distiller nor an importer of distilled spirits.
h. Section 5703 makes liable the manufacturer or importer of tobacco products and cigarette
papers and tubes.
Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife do not manufacture or import tobacco products, cigarette papers
or tubes.
Case Authority
"In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes, it is the established rule not to extend their
provisions by implication beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their
operation so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are
construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen." -- Gould v. Gould,
245 U.S. 151
"Liability for taxation must clearly appear from statute imposing tax." -- Highly v. Commissioner
of Internal Revenue, 69 F. 2d 160
"...the taxpayer must be liable for the income tax. Tax liability is a condition precedent to the
demand. Merely demanding payment, even repeatedly, does not cause liability." -- Bothke v.
Fluor Engineers & Contractors, 713 F. 2d 1405
104. There is only one section (Section 6020) of the IRC covering the preparation of returns by the
Internal Revenue Service on a persons behalf. This section states, in relevant part:
"6020(a) -- If any person shall fail to make a return required by this title or by regulations
prescribed thereunder, but shall consent to disclose all information necessary for the preparation
thereof, then, and in that case, the Secretary may prepare such return, which, being signed by such
160
person, may be received by the Secretary as the return of such person."
-- and
"6020(b)(1) -- If any person fails to make any return required by any internal revenue law or
regulation made thereunder at the time prescribed therefor, or makes, willfully or otherwise, a
false or fraudulent return..."
Therefore, it is clear from this section that the IRS may prepare or execute returns on a person's
behalf only when that person has a clearly established requirement to make a return AND with
such person's consent to provide the necessary information. Section 6020 does not establish a
requirement to make a return, however, but merely presumes it. Furthermore, Section 6020
clearly declares that any return prepared by the IRS on a person's behalf must be signed by that
person. This is confirmed by the enforcing regulation, 26CFR301.6020-1 which states, in relevant
part:
"(a) Preparation of returns -- (1) In general. If any person required by the Code or by the
regulations prescribed thereunder to make a return fails to make such return, it may be prepared
by the district director or other authorized internal revenue officer or employee provided such
person consents to disclose all information necessary for the preparation of such return. The
return upon being signed by the person required to make it shall be received by the district
director as the return of such person."
105. That if the Internal Revenue Service wishes to prepare a return on Affiant's and Affiant's
lawful wife's behalf, please provide the:
(1) Code or Regulation that requires Affiant or Affiant's lawful wife to make statements, keep
records, or file returns; or
(2) Proper notice served upon Affiant or Affiant's lawful wife by the Secretary or delegated
authority requiring me to make statements, keep records, or file returns;
(3) Code and Regulation that makes Affiant or Affiant's lawful wife liable for a tax; and
(4) Specific sources of gross income upon which a tax is imposed.
106. Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife would be most happy to complete any returns required of
Affiant or Affiant's lawful wife by law, if Affiant and/or Affiant's lawful wife have a tax liability
and upon service of proper notice.
107. Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife hereby rebut the presumption of a requirement where none
actually exists under law via this sworn affidavit, thereby shifting the burden of proof to the
agency (Secretary of the Treasury/IRS), which must then disprove Affiant's and Affiant's lawful
wife's statements and cannot.
108. That on June 18, 1998 a United States Marshall came to Affiant's Domicile in Eagar, Arizona
to serve a summons for criminal trial in U.S. District Court in Phoenix Arizona on the "legal
fictions" WILLIAM COOPER and ANNIE MORDHORST or "fictions" of like names.
109. That Affiant noticed the U.S. Marshall that Affiant is NOT the legal fictions named in the
summons and ordered him off the property.
110. That Affiant noticed the U.S. Marshall that he was trespassing.
111. That Affiant noticed the U.S. Marshall that he has no federal jurisdiction or authority within
the territorial boundaries of the state of Arizona.
112. That the U.S. Marshall did NOT serve the summons.
113. That the U.S. Marshall obeyed Affiant's demand and notice to vacate the property due to
unlawful trespass.
114. That Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are not the legal fictions WILLIAM COOPER and/or
ANNIE MORDHORST or any other fiction named in the summons signed by United States
District Court Judge Irwin.
115. That NO summons has ever been served upon the Affiant or Affiant's lawful wife at any time
whatsoever by anyone whomsoever.
116. That any summons issued by a federal Judge of a federal Court upon Citizens of any State
161
domiciled within the territorial boundaries of that State is unconstitutional and unlawful when
jurisdiction is challenged unless and until the United States first prove their jurisdiction over such,
land, property, business, and Citizens.
117. That any arrest warrant issued by any federal Judge of any federal Court due to failure to
appear in any federal Court against a summons which was NEVER SERVED is unconstitutional
and unlawful and is void upon its inception.
118. That any arrest warrant issued by any Judge of any federal Court against any Citizens of any
State domiciled within the territorial boundaries of any Union State is unconstitutional and
unlawful when jurisdiction of the United States is challenged unless and until the United States
first prove their jurisdiction over such land, property, business, and Citizens.
119. On July 1, 1998, U. S. District Court Judge Irwin unconstitutionally and unlawfully stepped
outside the jurisdiction and authority of the United States when he issued a bench warrant for the
arrest of the legal fictions known as WILLIAM COOPER and ANNIE MORDHORST or other
similar names, mistaking them for William Cooper and Annie Cooper, for not appearing in "his"
court on an unconstitutional and unlawful summons which was NEVER SERVED. The United
States has no jurisdiction or venue within the territorial boundaries of the State of Arizona except
over land that was ceded to the United States by the State Legislature.
120. That the federal income tax is VOID because the administrative and enforcement powers are
unconstitutional.
Supreme Court ruling in:
240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 FRANK R. BRUSHABER, Appt.,v,UNION PACIFIC
RAILROAD COMPANY. No. 140. Argued October 14 and 15, 1915.Decided January 24, 1916.
Affirmed
Supreme Court ruled: "We have not referred to a contention that because certain administrative
powers to enforce the act were conferred by the statute upon the Secretary of the Treasury,
therefore it was void as unwarrantedly delegating legislative authority, because we think to state
the proposition is to answer it."
Supreme Court Cited:
Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649,36 L. ed. 294, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 495; Buttfield v.
Stranahan, 192U. S. 470, 496, 48 L. ed. 525, 535, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 349; Oceanic SteamNav. Co. v.
Stranahan, 214 U. S. 320, 53 L. ed. 1013, 29Sup. Ct. Rep. 671.
Note! The Supreme Court not only referred to the contention but stated it and thus answered it
citing case precedent. In answering the contention in the ruling of the Court the Supreme Court
Justices have rendered the federal income tax VOID. Since no one else to my knowledge has ever
cited this fact the Courts may not honor the ruling. Nevertheless it is a factual statement under the
Law that the Congress cannot delegate its powers to anyone, or anything, or any entity. Another
factual statement in the Law is that the Congress cannot breach the balance of power between
branches of government by giving its legislative power to the executive or judicial branches of
governement. Both of these statements are set in stone. For either one or both of those reasons the
federal income tax AND the Internal Revenue Service are unconstitutional. The first time this
contention is brought before the Supreme Court the income tax must be struck down.
121. That between the years 1970 and 1973, while a member of the Intelligence Briefing Team,
Petty Officer of the Watch in the Command Center, and SPECAT Operator of the KL-47 for
Admiral Bernard Clarey Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet Affiant witnessed the
MAJESTYTWELVE plan to disarm the American People, destroy the united States of America,
and institute world totalitarian socialist government. The plan included a statement that the
so-called income tax is the unconstitutional implementation of the graduated income tax required
as Plank #2 of Karl Marx and Engles' Communist Manifesto.
122. That Affiant has never knowingly or intentionally defrauded any "bank". All contracts have
been honored and all loans repaid on time and in full except for one, which loan is current and
162
paid up to date according to its contract.
123. That Affiant has not obtained a loan of any kind from any "bank" in over seventeen years.
124. That Affiant's lawful wife has obtained five loans from a "bank," individual, or lending
institution as a single woman.
125. That in each instance of obtaining a loan from a "bank," individual, or lending institution
Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife have without fail informed the "bank," individual, or lending
institution of our married status.
126. That in each instance of obtaining a loan from a "bank," individual, or lending institution
Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife have asked the representative of the "bank," individual, or
lending institution to make the loan to Affiant's lawful wife as "a single woman" because of the
immediate danger that Affiant might be murdered due to his status as an enemy of the socialist
subversives operating within the United States government.
127. That in each instance of obtaining a loan from a "bank," individual, or lending institution
Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife have followed the instructions of the representative of the lending
institution, individual, or "bank". That all letters delivered, forms filled out, or forms signed by
Affiant or Affiant's wife were at the instruction of the representative of the "bank", individual, or
lending institution for the purpose of facilitating the loan(s) to Affiant's lawful wife as a "single
woman".
128. That following the instructions of the lending representative of any "bank," individual, or
lending institution after having given full disclosure of our marital status is NOT fraud.
129. That as all letters delivered, forms filled out, or forms signed by Affiant or Affiant's wife were
at the instruction of the lending representative of the "bank", individual, or lending institution for
the purpose of facilitating the loan(s) to Affiant's lawful wife as a "single woman" there can be NO
fraud.
130. That all monetary figures given to any representative of a "bank," individual, or lending
institution as moneys earned by Affiant and/or Affiant's lawful wife were always much LOWER
than actual moneys earned during any period of time requested. Stating a lower figure always
makes it more difficult to obtain a loan and is NOT fraud.
131. That it is much more difficult for a "single woman" with children to obtain a loan than a
"married woman". Making it more difficult upon oneself to obtain a loan is NOT fraud.
132. That "fraud" requires intent to "defraud" and NO such intent has ever been present in any of
Affiant's or Affiant's lawful wife's dealings with any "bank," individual, or lending institution.
Affiant's intent was to protect his lawful wife and children against the possibility of Affiant's
murder by a despotic government. All contracts have been honored and all loans repaid on time
and in full except for one, which loan is current and paid up to date according to its contract.
133. That the only outstanding loan is on the Headquarters of a Constitutional Contractural Pure
Trust for which Affiant and Affiant's wife are the Trustees. The transfer of title is registered with
the Apache County Recorder in St. Johns, Arizona. The lending institution has accepted all
payments by check drawn on the Trust account. The property has been legally and lawfully
transferred from Affiant's wife to the Trust even though the loan remains in the name of Affiant's
wife. According to Law Affiant's wife holds title in Trust as "Trustee".
134. That all applications for loans by Affiant's lawful wife were accepted and signed by the
representative of the "bank," individual, or lending institution as "true and correct", "approved",
and "accepted".
135. That any representative who attests to anything other than what is sworn to in this affidavit is
acting only to protect his or her job and to cover his or her own actions in advising us in the
particular manner dictated to us in order that Affiant's wife could obtain the loan or loans as a
"single woman". Any loan obtained in this manner cannot be, and is NOT fraud.
136. That Affiant is a member of the Constitutional and Lawfully constituted unorganized Militia
of the State of Arizona and of the united States of America.
163
137. That the Affiant and the Militia have the Right guaranteed by the Constitution for the united
Statesof America and the Constitution of the State of Arizona to keep and bear arms in defense of
Affiant, Affiant's property, the State of Arizona, and the Constitution for the united States of
America. That if the United States will not enforce the Laws of the Union it is the Right and the
Duty of the Militia to enforce the Laws of the Union.
138. That Affiant and the Militia have the Right and the duty to stand and fight the United States
governments despotic and tyrannical unconstitutional and unlawful usurpation of power and
jurisdiction with all the means at Affiant's and the Militia's disposal, including the force of arms,
any assault which may be mounted upon Affiant, Affiant's family, Affiant's property, and any
other property for which Affiant may be responsible.
139. Affiant and or Affiant's wife are not anti-government, radical, fundamentalist, crazy, suicidal,
criminal, child molesters, bank robbers, child abusers, tax protesters, wife beater, husband beater,
drug users, drug dealers, drug growers, drug stockpilers, revolutionaries, subversives, terrorists,
white supremacist, racists, anti-Semitic, or any other demonizing label that may be applied.
Affiant and Affiant's wife do not have illegal weapons, hand grenades, bombs, missiles, tanks,
machine guns, anti-tank rockets, anti-aircraft weapons or any other demonized instrument of any
type whatsoever. The Trust Headquarters and domicile of Affiant and Affiant's wife as Trustees is
NOT a compound.
140. Affiant demands that the Internal Revenue Service disclose and CANCEL any and all
agreements, contracts, adhesions, laws, regulations, codes, statutes, or treaties which the United
States believes bring Affiant under the jurisdiction of the United States and/or make Affiant liable
to file and/or pay the so-called income tax according to items enumerated above. Affiant demands
the Internal Revenue Service disclose the true nature of the fictions WILLIAM COOPER and
ANNIE MORDHORST or any other fictions upon which the Internal Revenue Service is
attempting to levy the so-called income tax and upon whom the federal Court has issued summons
and arrest warrants.
141. The Affiant has always acted, and is acting in good faith and with reasonable cause in
accordance with 26 CFR Section 1.6661-6(b)
142. The Affiant and Affiant's lawful wife are permitted to amend and/or correct any records in
possession of, or maintained by, any governmental authority, which is inconsistent herewith, in
accordance with Title 26 of the United States Code, Section 552a.
143. The Affiant knows that if any government employee, agent, representative, or official, to
whom these letters become known, fails to state a rebuttal, said government employee, agent,
representative, or official is forever estopped so to do by the maxim of law, "he who remains
silent, consents."
144. The Affiant hereby gives the government agents, to whom this Contract and Declaration of
Citizenship/Affidavit of Truth and Jurisdiction Challenge is directed, twenty (20) calendar days
from the date that this Contract and Declaration of Citizenship/Affidavit of Truth and
Jurisdiction Challenge is received by said government agents to respond to this Contract and
Declaration of Citizenship/Affidavit of Truth and Jurisdiction Challenge.
145. Any statements or claims made by the Affiant in this Affidavit of Truth, properly rubutted by
facts of Law, or by overriding Constitution for the united States of America, Article Three,
Supreme Court rulings, shall not prejudice the Lawful validity of other claims not properly
rebutted or invalidated by facts of Law.
146. All responses to this affidavit must be designated for delivery EXACTLY as prescribed below,
without omitting any parentheses. Otherwise, any attempted correspondence with the Affiant will
be returned to the sender, "Refused".
William, Cooper
All Rights Reserved
(c/o Harvest Trust, c/o P.O. Box 1970, Eagar, (de jure, union state of Arizona) non-assumpsit to
164
the venue of "AZ" (these united states of America) non-domestic, i.e., non-government mail
delivery non-assumpsit to the venue of ( 85925 )
The Affiant now affixes the Affiant's signature to all of the above affirmations with explicit
reservation of all of Affiant's unalienable Rights without prejudice to any of those Rights.
I William, Cooper declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the 1787 Constitution for the
united States of America that the foregoing Contract and Declaration of Citizenship, Affidavit of
Truth, Jurisdiction Challenge and Summary thereof is, to the best of William, Cooper's
Knowledge, belief, understanding and information, true, correct certain and complete.
Further the Affiant sayeth naught.
_Signature on original.______________________
William, Cooper - Affiant
All Rights Reserved
(c/o Harvest Trust, c/o P.O. Box 1970, Eagar, (de jure, union state of Arizona) non-assumpsit to
the venue of "AZ" (these united states of America) non-domestic, i.e., non-government mail
delivery non-assumpsit to the venue of ( 85925 )
I do attest and certify by my signature below that William, Cooper the Affiant is known to me and
that I personally witnessed William, Cooper the Affiant affix his signature to this Demand,
Declaration, and Affidavit and that the signature affixed above is the true and correct signature of
William, Cooper the Affiant.
_Signature on original.______________________
John Doyel, Shamley
All Rights Reserved
(c/o 21176 Avenue 144, Porterville, (de jure, union state of California) non-assumpsit to the venue
of "CA" (these united states of America) non-domestic, i.e., non-government mail delivery
non-assumpsit to the venue of ( 93257 )
DOES PROHIBITION CAUSE MORE
HARM THAN MARIJUANA?
Recently, narcotics officers raided the house of a suspected marijuana dealer in Wisconsin. The unarmed
suspect, who offered no resistance, was shot to death in front of his 7-year-old son. His crime?
Possession of 1 ounce of marijuana.
In Oklahoma, a wheelchair-bound paraplegic who used medicinal marijuana to control muscle spasms
caused by his broken back was sentenced to 10 years in prison. His crime? Possession of 2 ounces of
marijuana. Another Oklahoma man is serving 75 years in prison for growing only 5 marijuana plants.
(These are not misprints.)
Prohibition is the number one cause of America's exploding prison population. Many non-violent drug
offenders are now serving longer prison sentences than murderers, rapists, and other violent criminals. It
costs taxpayers $30,000 per year to imprison just one non-violent drug offender. Politicians are spending
billions of tax dollars to build new prisons and jails so more and more non-violent drug offenders can be
warehoused. Meanwhile, funding for education and other services are being strained.
Reducing drug abuse is a desirable goal, but law enforcement methods used to obtain that goal are
counterproductive.
Prohibition costs billions to enforce, creates a black market that generates violence and corruption, and
makes criminals out of millions of productive and harmless adults. Adult use of alcohol and tobacco is
accepted, but adult use of marijuana is considered criminal behavior. Why?
The main rationalization for Prohibition is to keep marijuana away from children. That rationalization
does not reflect reality. Several surveys reveal that teenagers can obtain marijuana easier than they can
obtain the legal drugs of beer or wine. In Holland, where sale of marijuana to adults is openly accepted,
the percentage of teenagers using marijuana is less than half that of American teenagers. Because
America's marijuana trade is totally unregulated, marijuana dealers are on the streets selling to anybody--
especially teenagers. Regulating marijuana like wine would put street dealers out
165
of business, would make marijuana dealers pay taxes, and would restrict sales to adults only. Prohibition
does not make it difficult for teenagers to obtain marijuana. Tougher marijuana laws have not reduced
marijuana use. Marijuana use has increasedevery single year since 1991.
In 1937 (the last year that marijuana was legal) only 100,000 Americans used marijuana. Now that
marijuana is illegal, 30 million Americans use marijuana, and marijuana is easily available to anybody
who wants it--including children and prison inmates. 600,000 Americans are arrested for marijuana
violations every year and thousands of them are sent to jail or prison, where many of them can still
obtain drugs. The government can't even keep drugs out of its own prisons, yet the politicians keep
telling us they can rid the entire nation of marijuana by spending more tax dollars. The
government now spends $15 billion every year (a 1,500% increase since 1980) waging a war on
marijuana smokers—a war that has lasted 60 years and is impossible to win. Another $5 billion per year
is lost in tax revenue that could be generated if marijuana was regulated and taxed like wine.
For all practical purposes, Marijuana Prohibition is a $15-billion-per-year government subsidy for drug
traffickers, organized crime, and street dealers. Because the government prohibits well-regulated liquor
stores from selling marijuana, the government ensures that organized crime and street dealers will
flourish. Prohibition escalates violence and corruption as mobsters, street gangs, and thugs fight for
control of the marijuana trade. Just as Alcohol Prohibition escalated violence and corruption during the
1920s, Marijuana Prohibition does the same today.
Once all the facts are known, it becomes clear that America's marijuana laws need reform. This issue
must be openly debated using only the facts. Groundless claims, meaningless statistics, and exaggerated
scare stories that have been peddled by politicians and prohibitionists for the last 60 years must be
rejected.
Quotes of the Founding Fathers
"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of
adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than
bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who question it's methods or throw light upon it's
crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the Bankers in the rear. Of
the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe..corporations have been enthroned and an era of
corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong
it's reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of
a few, and the Republic is destroyed. --Abraham Lincoln
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.
Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The
issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly
belongs." -- Thomas Jefferson
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by
inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive
the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers
conquered."-- Thomas Jefferson
"Resistence to tyrants is obedience to God"--Thomas Jefferson
"We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts--not to overthrow the
Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution--Abraham Lincoln
"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or
restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe"--John Adams
2nd Pres.
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is
inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at
all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of
166
property, and freedom of press."--Thomas Jefferson
"Let us therefore animate and encourage each other, and show the world that a free man,
contending for his liberty on his own ground, is superior to any slavish mercenary on earth."--
George Washington--July 2, 1776
"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be
held to the priciples of it's Constitution."--Thomas Jefferson
"Democracies have been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property;
and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death."--James
Madison
"A generous parent would have said, 'if there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child
may have peace."--Thomas Paine, Common Sense
"Posterity, you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your
freedom. I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in heaven that ever I
took half the pains to preserve it."--John Adams
"The way to have safe government is not to trust it all to the one, but to divide it among the
many, distributing to everyone exactly the functions in which he is competent....To let the National
Government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and it's foreign and federal relations.....
The State Governments with the Civil Rights, Laws, Police and administration of what concerns
the State generally. The Counties with the local concerns, and each ward direct the interests within
itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these Republics from the great national one down through all
it's subordinations until it ends in the administration of everyman's farm by himself, by placing
under everyone what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best."--Thomas
Jefferson
"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves and if
we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the
remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform them."
"There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle in religion. It's least
interference with it would be a most flagrant usurpation."--James Madison
"If taxes are laid upon us without our having a legal representaion where they are laid, we are
reduced from the character of free subjects to the state of tributary slaves."--Samuel Adams
"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our selection between
economy and liberty or profusion and servitude.
If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat in our drink, in our necessities
and comforts, in our labors and in our amusements, for our callings and our creeds...our people..
must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give earnings of fifteen of these to the
government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us
bread, we must live..
We have not time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account, but be glad to
obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow suffers.
Our landholders, too...retaining indeed the title and stewardship of estates called theirs, but
held really in trust for the treasury, must...be contented with penury, obscurity and exile..private
fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance.
This is the tendancy of all human governments. A departure from principle becomes a
precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of society is reduced to
mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering...
And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in it's train
wretchedness and oppression." -- Thomas Jefferson
"If the present (Continental) Congress errs in too much talking, how can it be otherwise, in a body to
which the
people send one hundred and fifty lawyers, whose trade it is to question
167
everything, yield nothing, and talk by the hour?" -- Thomas Jefferson - 1821
"It is not only his right, but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding,
judgement and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." -- John Adams
"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in their Constitution
or Confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, so much as downright ignorance of the nature
of coin, credit and circulation." --John Adams
"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another; shall leave
them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement"- Thomas Jefferson -
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect
themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950)
"... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and
always, well informed.
The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they
misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to
the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to
time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them
right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two?
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its
natural manure." - Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787, letter to William S. Smith, see Jefferson On
Democracy, 20 (S. Padover ed. 1939).
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." - George Mason,
3 Elliot,
Debates at 425-426.
"...to disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them..." -George Mason, 3 Elliot,
Debates at 380.
"Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to
destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." -Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts,
spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789.
"...the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." -Trench
Coxe in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution." Under the
pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian"
in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1.
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms..." -Richard Henry
Lee, 1788,
Member of the First U.S. Senate.
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of
the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable
citizens from keeping their own arms..." -
Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at
86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850.
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a
place of honor with all that is good." -George Washington
"The battle, Sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, Sir, we
have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There
is no retreat but in submission and slavery!
Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable; and
let it come! I repeat, Sir, let it come!"
Patrick Henry, in his famous "The War Inevitable" speech, March, 1775.
"It is in vain, Sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace! But there is no peace. The
war is actually begun!
168
The next gale that sweeps from the North will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our
brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that Gentlemen want? What would
they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?
Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but
as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
-Patrick Henry, in his famous "The War Inevitable" speech, March, 1775.
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives
moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence Games played with the
ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your
gun therefore be the constant companion of your walk." -Encyclopedia of Thomas Jefferson, 318 (Foley,
Ed., reissued 1967)
"That the Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the
press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent "the people" of the United States who are peaceable
citizens from keeping their own arms..." -
Samuel Adams in arguing for a Bill of Rights, from the book "Massachusetts," published by Pierce &
Hale, Boston, 1850, pg. 86-87.
"The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves.. . . [T]he Constitution ought to
secure a genuine and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well
organized, armed, and disciplined, and include . . . all men capable of bearing arms..." -Richard Henry
Lee, "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic," (1788) p. 169.
"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural
and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies in time of peace should be avoided as dangerous to
liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the
civil power." -George Mason, Article 13 of the Virginia Declaration
of Rights of 1776.
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule of construction be conceived to
give the Congress the power to disarm the people." -William Rawle, 1825; He was offered the position
of the first U.S. Attorney General, by President Washington.
"Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is a force, like fire: a dangerous servant and a terrible
master". -
George Washington
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well-armed, and well-regulated
militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms
shall be compelled to render military service in person." -James Madison, 4th President of the United
States, I Annuals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789). [This was Madison's original proposal for what
became the Second Amendment.]
"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that
army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if
at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." -Alexander
Hamilton, speaking of standing armies in The Federalist 29.
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every
other nation...nothwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are
carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
-James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46, at 243-244.
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like laws,
discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as
property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all the world
would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue
were one half the world deprived the use of them..." - Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56
(1894).
169
"A free people ought...to be armed..." -George Washington, speech of January 7, 1790 in the Boston
Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790.
"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." -Patrick Henry, in
the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution...Debates and other Proceedings of the
Convention of Virginia, ...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 (2d ed.
Richmond, 1805). Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with
arms for our defense?
Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them
under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose
hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" -Patrick
Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d Ed. Philadelphia, 1836.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -Alexander
Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8.
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of
the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable
citizens from keeping their own arms..." -
Samuel Adams...Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at
86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia
Constitution, June 1776.
"Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense..." -John
Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788).
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the
people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and
that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of
press." -Thomas Jefferson "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it.
Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right
of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."
-Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861 -- (And that's exactly what HE did!!!)
Reality Update : By THE INFORMER
The cold reality of truth hits you when you see your freedom and liberty taken from you by
reprobates. Reprobates abound in this country, so much so that they permeate the legislative,
executive, and judicial branches of an entity called government.
Who are reprobates? All lawyers and the king and his congress or state legislators. The
Almighty, called different names by various religions, asked the people why they wanted a king?
After they gave their reasons He said fine, but you can't have two masters so don't expect anything
from me.
Well in today's world the people's king is the president of the United States. They had the
governors of the states as their first king until the United States took control of the states and made
them political subdivisions. The people, not all by the way, view the various kings with awe. They
vote the governors and president into office at elections time.
They have no idea they are the chief executive officers (CEO) of a corporation, just like the
CEO of General Motors. How can they be free when they elect the king and his knights (congress
or legislatures of the states) who in turn dictate to the people what, when, where, and how to live
their lives. They don't tell the people why. The people become slaves and peons to the corporation
they vote into. They just can't pull out like when they own stock in G.M and call it in. It is different,
because whom do they fall back on for their protection, other than themselves? Do they try to fall
back on the Almighty? Yes, but what did the Almighty say 2000 years ago? Did you make your
choice? Do you know why your prayers are not answered now? People want to be controlled
170
because they would rather be secure, not take responsibility for their own lives. Now the king and
his henchmen, which are the murderers and robber barons that Lysander Spooner talked about in
his book, "No Treason : The Constitution of No Authority," hide behind that "government" veil for
protection and claim you owe your soul to support their greed. They claim to follow the by-laws
of their constitutions and claim that the constitution is YOURS, the peoples.
Of course, this is nonsense and an absurdity at it's ultimate. It's only yours if you join their
commercial organization of law merchants. They tout that it protects you, but the cold hard reality
hits home when you can't do the simple things like work without a license (SSN), traveling without
getting a license, building a private home without a permit, or fixing the home without getting a
permit, paying a rent tax on property they claim you own, but in reality they do, just to name a few.
This corporation of CEO's kings, if you will, control Grand Juries and their own courts. There is
no such thing as the private people's courts wherein justice can be obtained. There are no courts
for the people of America to protect their rights given to them by the Almighty. Why? Because
they wanted another master, which turns out to be a commercial entity called government with their
king president and/or governors. When the Constitution for the United States was created by those
select few wanting to take control of the States, Patrick Henry said he was no longer a Virginian,
but only an American, see 1788 Virginia Debates.
I have been in the trenches for ten years, on the front lines for 5 years. The only thing I have
learned is that there is no foundational stability in the "patriot" movement. By that I mean, and the
following questions has to lead into it because most all "patriots" understand this part. The
non-patriot does not;
1) What are the two most important commandments that the others are based upon?
2) Have you elected someone to take control over your life through representation?
3) Did you vote for the corporate CEO of a State?
4) Did you vote for the CEO of the main headquarters located in the coti of Washington D.C.?
5) Do you know that even your county government is a commercial political subdivision of the
State?
6) Do you have control over your neighbors property?
7) Can you limit his freedoms to work, travel and the like?
8) Does he have the same, if any, control over you?
9) Have you elected someone in government, whether Federal, State, County, or town to
control his life?
10) Why have you voted for a group of men in the county that have taken control over your
neighbor's property by taxing his land?
11) Have you read II Kings 23:32-33?
12) Do you really know what the real reason the States and United States were created.
13) For your protection?
14) When your freedoms are taken, how is that protection? Think Again!
15) When was the first time you ever thought and answered these questions and have not done
any research other than what other people have told you?
Putting all the yes's and no's together side by side, how did you fare? If the yes's outnumbered
the no's, then why complain your rights have been taken? You got what you deserved when
choosing a new master over the Almighty. If the no's outnumbered the yes's , then you are
screwed by mob rule of democracy and there is nothing you can do about it. You will never win in
the lawyer-merchant courts. That is the cold, hard reality, believe me, I am living proof of that, as
are thousands, if not millions of others in my position that the CEO's underlings have persecuted.
Grand Jury protection? Lets get real, as the many case law and state attorneys general will tell
you, the Grand Jury is an arm of the court and controlled by the courts so the other reprobates,
their prosecutors, can use it as their tool. This is why you can't get into a Grand Jury hearing to
protect yourself. This hearing is nothing more than a probable cause hearing controlled by the
171
executive branch lawyer prosecutor. The Attorney General of South Carolina told a man that in
order for him to present a case to the State Grand Jury, he must first apply to the prosecutor to
decide whether the complaint is worthy of presenting. This is not the people's Grand Jury, it is the
commercial State's Grand Jury. Are you people , who are not "patriots", starting to see that YOU
are the PROBLEM. Here is a case that states; "Grand Jury exercises broad investigative powers
and generally has both right and duty to procure everyman's evidence." in re: Grand Jury,821 F2d
946, since the very purpose of the Grand Jury is to ascertain probable cause, Blair v. U.S., 250
U.S. at 282.
If you are considered "everyman", why can't you appear at a grand jury investigating you?
Because the kings you elected into office usurped power and decreed you list your rights to
present exculpatory evidence. You have a new master. This goes against what the court stated in
Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375, 390, "Certainly the most celebrated function of the grand jury is
to stand between the government and the citizen, and thereby protect the latter from harassment
and unfounded prosecution." I believe in Hale v. Hinkle, 201 U.S. at 61, they said that your kings
have "destroyed the proper functionings of the grand jury, as it is to be the servent of neither the
government, nor the courts, but of the people."
People, come on, use some logic. This can and has happened because YOU, the masses of
asses voted your new master into office and allowed the king and his henchmen, all the way down
to the county level, to sell you out to a greater king called the United Nations. This was done with
the express cooperation of the reprobates (every member of the private Bar Association), from
1947 to present. This allowed your vote to be used against you to be involved in a joint-venture
with other nations kings. Don't you just love what you did? I'm talking mostly to those who are
not in my choir and patriots that love to be citizens (stockholders) of the commercial
establishments called states. Now it is simple logic that tells you that if you are all of the same
persuasion, you can all sit on the Grand or Petit Jury against other law-merchant peers and can do
secret hearings against them so they don't destroy your scam to control others that are not of your
persuasion. Huh?
Now your representatives you elected can and have the right under YOUR by-laws that you
consented to at Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, to tax you and the same goes for the states.
Representation and taxation goes together and you voluntarily consented. Just like the First
Judiciary Act of 1789 stated that ALL jurisdiction is based upon consent. For the life of me, I still
cannot understand why "patriots" still insist on becoming stockholders (citizens of) a particular
commercial organization (state), when Patrick Henry refused to claim to be a citizen of the state of
Virginia. He was a true Patriot, if that's what you want to label him. Didn't you voters join a
"political party"? Have you ever read Aber J. Nock's, "Our Enemy the State"? Didn't he say the
"political body" destroys rights and is not designed to protect rights? I think you better read it to
get some foundational basis for "political body."
Land. Who provided the land you live on in the first place, those previous people elected into
office? Try reading the Bible, again II Kings. Do your kings claim you owe them and their
henchmen a tax to live on their land? Yup, they sure do, because you consented to a new master
who usurped the real master's position. Try reading Deuteronomy 17;14-20. What law should a
king use according to scripture? Does your king abide by this Bible verse? Who took the land he
gave you to live upon and claimed you owed "them": a tax? Who is "them?" Who voted "them"
into office? Why? If you didn't vote "them" into office but your next door neighbor did, why did
you allow him to hire thugs to steal your property when individually neither he nor you can? Did
you vote "them" into office so you could steal your neighbor's property (money, etc.) to offset
some debt "them" created for your welfare? If you did, then by your consent, freely given that you
are the citizen (stockholder) who elected the CEO of the commercial political body to do as they
wish to protect and support the commercial law merchant establishment at your and his expense.
Just like the CEO at GM has to protect the corporation at the expense of the individual
172
stockholder, even to the confiscation of some stock by manipulating stock buyouts. This is called
inflation to control the citizen stockholder.
The real people who created this monstrosity called the states and United States, the law
merchants, wrote the by-laws (constitutions) so that the law merchants would not be allowed to
encroach upon non law merchants. As ou can see, law merchants are crafty people. Look at used
car salesmen and lawyers. If they can coerce and intimidate you into buying or using their services
it is caveat emptor. If the king CEO and his henchmen (congress and legislatures of states) can
convince you that you are a part of their system and you consent, so be it. Oh, they say, it's your duty to
vote! Why
don't you just come down to register? It's so easy and you would keep our
party in power. We can't let the other side win and take away your rights, now can we? AHH,
shrewd criminals aren't they? Remember, there was only one group of people and no "parties" in
the beginning. Parties make no difference when the same commercial organization is to create debt.
So, you want justice? If you believe that the people in general created the constitutions, (you do
believe in Santa, don't you?), then "we" have the right to form our own Grand Jury of America,
indict the reprobates from the CEO all the way down to the lowly scum of the earththat the
Almighty wished seven Woe's upon, the judges/lawyer merchants, and take back our country. We
need the militia to be the equivalent of the U.S. Marshals, which, by the way, is a private concern
like the IRS, to enforce the arrest and trial of the usurpers and tyrants in our, the people's court
under the law of the Almighty, Deut. 17:14. Kick out the United Nations. Create our own banks
as was done in 1841 and 1846 to deal in real substance and totally control corporations that left
this country and want to come back in when we start to prosper. KEEP THE INCOME TAX! What?
you say. That's
right it is a corporate income tax for those people who want limited liability
to do business under license. After all, how would this country and it's law merchants survive in a
commercial world? Put those on notice, the CEO and all those under him and Congress and
State legislators that any more encroachments on the Liberty and Freedom of a private man would
be treason and subject to either the death penalty or banishment from this country after all his
possessions and wealth have been taken from him. Now, don't you think that will keep them on
the straight and narrow? Oh, one thing more, no lawyers allowed in the congress or legislature,
and none allowed in the executive branch of government. Furthermore, the violation of the
practice of law be abolished. The next friend could represent you in OUR courts, which would be
seperate from the law merchants courts they have today.
The great writ of Habeas Corpus would be set up to assure it works. Judges would not have to
be lawyers, just like it was in the old days of logic and common sense. The bane of mankind has
always been lawyers, See Matthew 23 and Luke 11:27-54. As Bastiat said; "Let's try freedom for
a change," by limiting congress and legislators of states to two terms maximum at the mean average
income of the American worker. That way they have to suffer with the laws they write as their only
job is to protect this country from foreign invasion and from domestic invasion from foreign
operatives. It is not a lifetime job to legislate no matter how good they seem to be. Plus, they get
no retirement, they go back out on the street and get a job like the rest of us.
Now, let's touch briefly the great writ of habeas corpus. It is not what people in the patriot
community think it is. It does not get you out of jail in three days or even in twenty days.
Generally, those applying for writs of habeus fail. From 1947 to 1957 only 1.4% were
successful. You can check this out in the case of Fay v. Noia, 83 S.Ct. 822(1963) which is one
of the leading cases referred to in other cases. In most cases, if you were fortunate to be one of
the 1.4% to win the release, it will not be immediate. The lawyer merchants have seen to it that
the Federal District Courts will permit the State courts an opportunity to correct the constitutional
error found by the District Court. Typically, the district court will order the State court to retry you
within a specific time frame and at the end of that time if they don't, then you are set free. Not what
173
you thought it to be, is it? The way the courts work, it could take months to upwards of two years.
So forget about the great writ helping you. I know first hand what they can do and the above is
correct as it happened to me and others I have come to know. You stand a better chance on
appeal in their state appellate courts. How much better? Maybe 1.8%, but i'll go 2% to be safe.
What do you want people, cold hard reality or nice mushy lip service of what things ought to
be? Even when I filed a 28 USC 1651 writ that does not require exhaustion of state remedies, the
Federal Court still insisted on using a 28 USC 2254, even though I was not a state prisoner, not
yet even to trial, and when convicted they still used 2254 even though I was not sentenced. I was
in physical custody, but that is NOT required for a habeas. You can be on parole, 371 US 236;
at large on ROR pending sentencing, 411 US 345; released on bail pending final disposition, 95
S.Ct. 886; or on probation, 372 F2d 641. The real question is how much restraint of one's
liberty is necessary before the right to apply for the writ is required. Remember, your failure to
raise terms of federal constitutional questions can constitute a procedural default as only federal
constitutional rights violated can apply to a habeas, Murry v. Carrier, 106 S.Ct. 2639,
2547-2648(1986). The king you elected controls everything. I have used the Magna Carta in a
case and lost. The adversaries attorney commented to another attorney by letter, of which I have
a copy, stating "So much for the Magna Charta." Well, what did you expect from law merchant
reprobates?
Today, the king you elected has abdicated his office and allowed one of his henchmen to take
over. That is the governor of the International Monetary Fund doing business as the Secretary
of the Treasury. This office holder, Robert Rubin, is the knight of the real king, the United Nations
controlled by the World Bank owners. Who are they? The money changers!
Well what else do you want to hear, that he, the Almighty will come down and rapture you out
of the mess YOU created by electing kings andjoining their baal? Read Daniel 3:1-13. Let's face
it, that is cold hard reality and those "patriots" that really know what is going on, don't stand a snowballs
chance in hell
to correct it on winning in"THEM'S" courts. Never forget this, people of
minds like mine, all courts in this country ARE THEIR'S, they are NOT YOURS by any stretch of
the imagination just like the constitution is not yours.
Lysander Spooner in a letter to Thomas F. Bayard in 1882, May 22, expressing the
Constitution this way, which "THEM" can't, by any stretch of sophistry deny; "...for what is the
Constitution? It is at best, a writing that was drawn up more than ninety years ago: was assented
to at the time only by a small number of men: ...Those men have long since been dead. They never
had any right of arbitrary dominion over even their contemporaries; and they never had any over us.
Their wills or wishes have no more rightful authority over us, than have the wills or wishes of men
that lived before the flood. They never personally signed, sealed, acknowledged, or delivered the
instrument which they imposed upon the country as law. They never, in any open and authentic
manner, bound even themselves to obey it, or made themselves personally responsible for the acts
of their so-called agents under it. They had no natural right to impose it, as law, upon a single
human being. The whole proceeding was pure usurpation. In practice, the Constitution has been
an utter fraud from the beginning. Professing to have been "ordained and established" by 'we the people
of the United
States', it has never been submitted to them as individuals, for their voluntary
acceptance or rejection."
The final conclusion is stated by Bastiat in "The Law"; "God has given to men all that is
necessary for them to accomplish their destinies. He has provided a social form as well as a human
form. And these social organs of persons are so constituted that they will develop themselves
harmoniously in the clear air of liberty. Away, then, with quacks and organizers! Away with their
rings, chains, hooks and pincers! Away with their artificial systems! Away with their whims of
governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centalization, their tariffs, their
174
government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulation,
their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations!
And now that the legislatore and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon
society, may they finally end where they should have began : May they reject all systems, and try
liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgement in the faith in God and His works."
Forget about 1983 actions, torts, and the like as they are for those slaves involved in the
system. Until we have formed our own courts of justice we will never prevail against the system.
You can only use their courts to prevail against another slave.
The cold, hard reality is that we have only two choices. One, form our own courts and police
officers, which would be the militia, to enforce the filings. Two, follow what Thomas Jefferson
had to say, "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion...And what
country can preserve it's liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve
the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms...The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." and implement what Madison had to say in
Federalist Paper #28.
The Declaration of Independance rules over that miserable commercial
document called the Constitution and spells out number two's choice in it's second paragraph.
Forget about the masses of asses who will scream you are the anarchists when overthrowing the
Constitution. In reality you are NOT overthrowing the Constitution, you are getting rid of scummy
reprobates that have
already overthrown the Constitution that is to keep "THEM" in Check. Don't
even think about doing it individually, because collectively we don't have six million people with
conviction to oust the reprobate usurpers. This is the 5% of the population that equates to the 5%
that fought the revolutionary war. But remember, then the enemy was an ocean away. Today, you
elected "THEM" into your backyard. Disgusting set of circumstances you put yourself into, HUH?
And you, average, Mr. and Mrs. America, are gragging the rest of us down with you. Again read
Daniel 3. So, elect your king by voting them back into office, so you can say, as you complain and
grovel before them when you are forced to pay your "fair share" into the communistic takeover,
Hail to the One-World Order.
Saddam Hussein :
"The true believers cannot but condemn this act, not because it has been committed by
America against a Muslim people but because it is an aggression perpetrated outside
international law," Saddam said in a statement.
"America could have further recourse to force, which could last some time ... and spread to
other countries as part of the settling of accounts sought by the United States," he added,
echoing widespread Arab fears that the operation against the Taliban and Osama bin
Laden could lead to a wider regional confrontation.
News Commentator :
Afghanistan's neighbour Iran was also prompt to condemn the strikes, with Foreign ministry
spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi describing them as "unacceptable", saying "they were
launched regardless of world public opinion, especially the Muslim nations."
"Redemption" is a process and philosophy developed by R. over the last 10 years or so. As he was
learning this
process, he made mistakes, which landed him and several others in jail over different periods of time.
This does not
mean he is a criminal or was ever intending to break the law, as some people assume. He is a farmer,
who was dealing
with various forms of negotiable and non-negotiable instruments through his occupation, and he was
also privy to
175
knowledge of the Federal Reserve system in this country, and how it operates. In his search for truth, he
uncovered the
most important knowledge being kept from us, in relation to our present situation of economic bondage.
This
information and the importance of it could only be inspired by one source, and R's dedication to that
source (God), and
an inner quest for truth.
R, himself, does not teach this process to anyone directly. Several people, who are dedicated to learning
from him,
have conversations with him on the phone, and information is then transcribed from these conversations.
Also, R. is not
in the business of selling information or "programs", so there are no packages of information from R.
Someone who
understands (or thinks they do) R's philosophy has published the "Interpretive Writings" available below.
This is a very
good analysis, but not complete or totally accurate. It is, though, the closest thing to a "study guide"
available, so far.
The very best way to learn this material is to study the "transcripts of the conversations". I, myself, have
had several
conversations with R, which have been recorded and will be available in transcript form here, soon.
Without going
through the problems yourself, you have to generalize, and R does not like to generalize, so alot of
people cannot get
the right information, because they have no real problem to deal with at the time. Well, I have had my
share of
problems recently, and fortunately, I was conversing with R during the whole episode while I was in
court. That
information is available now. (Added 6-28-01) Click Here!!
When R spoke to the first people about this material, they "ran with it", without making sure they knew
all the facts
first. These folks were (wishes to remain anonymous), Rice McLeod, and Greg Williams (Qui Tam), I
believe. This
along with other Info. was first published in the "American's Bulletin" and instantly, it swept the country.
The problem
was, that R. only taught step A and B, but did not finish teaching anyone the rest of the steps.
Immediately, people went
out and started writing up "sight drafts" which several people have been indicted for already. Obviously,
these people
didn't know what they were doing, because they did not do what R does. These "Sight Drafts" were
drawn on the
Treasury on a mythical "Treasury Direct Account". This was taught by some of these initial people, but
later, after
people started getting into trouble, they were teaching NOT to do it, and that it was a bad idea.
Currently, there are only a couple of people teaching "true redemption" according to R. These people
DO NOT
include Ron Lutz or Right Way Law. I have to say this here, but it is the truth. Also, Howard Griswold
is NOT teaching
"Redemption", and neither is the book "Cracking the Code" which was offered on this website a while
back, and
neither is Qui Tam. And neither is "the aware group" and their $900.00 package. Alot of people are
176
learning about this
information from the "American's Bulletin", but they have to remember, that Robert Kelly is doing his
best job to make
"all the information available", without trying to be partial to one person's methods or another's. Since R
himself is not
teaching this, there wouldn't be anything to publish if the other material was not floating around. Here
are some of the
most common misconceptions :
1. There is a Treasury Direct Account created by the Birth Certificate or SS# that has $1 Million dollars
in it, that is
being held against your strawman. (False) That was a complete mis-understanding by several people.
2. Accept the Birth Certificate for Value and Chargeback to the Secretary of the Treasury. (This was not
necessary, and
is no longer being utilized, to the best of my knowledge)
3. We must file a 1040 ES either once or quarterly, to "bankrupt" the strawman (debtor). (False) Barton
Butz did some
research into this, and now we are learning that quite possibly Barton and the IRS were talking about
two different
things entirely, or this is simply, "not necessary". Either way, currently, it is not being done.
4. Redemption can be mixed with other procedures if "Acceptance" doesn't seem to work. (False)
Acceptance is
working, they will hide it though. When you mix processes, you are showing them you really don't know
what you are
doing, because R's process is EXACTLY 180 Degrees off from what common law activists were
previously doing.
(The attitude is that "Everything is done for our benefit. If they are not acting for your benefit, they are
in violation of
their fiduciary duty. They are the Trustees in Bankruptcy").
....And a number of other random misconceptions..too numerous to mention here by list. But,
importantly, R. has
stated that "there are alot of people here who are going to have to qualify their own positions. So we
want to be careful
about this, because this is the difference between general appearance and special appearance..... You
can't just rely on a
generalized idea. Eventually you are going to have to take a position called applying your principles". -
And basically
what he is saying (I believe) is that, you can't just rely on other people's information, you have to know
some things and
apply your beliefs, and they can't just be based on things you hear, that aren't proven, in some way, to
you, personally.
After having been through all of this myself, and having utilized the "redemption information", I can only
tell you
this : "It is very powerful". -- I have learned many things along the way. If someone were to ask me
though, "Does it
work?", the answer would have to be something like this, "Nothing is guaranteed, and every situation is
different. "Will
it work?" really should be phrased "will I make it work?" -- Because of this -- When something as
powerful as this,
does truly work, it would be very easy for everyone to learn this like a 'loophole' to avoid responsibility.
To counter
177
this, the system MUST make it LOOK LIKE it isn't working, regardless of what the truth is. Otherwise,
when proven to
work, you would see the floodgates come bursting open with people trying to leave Babylon. Who
could blame them?
At the same time, who could blame the "system" for trying to keep it's slaves on the plantation. (Don't
wonder near the
'outside' zone, you are likely to get 'ideas' and realize that only a piece of paper is keeping you locked
up). Learning and
studying this information is the only thing that will teach you whether this is "real" or not. And you will
decide for
yourself. Then, nobody can convince you otherwise. On one phone conversation with R., he said "Just
because this
stuff works for me, doesn't mean it's automatically going to work for the next person". What he meant
by that is :
Everyone's different, and if you are going to go out and do things and get into trouble and think this will
work to get
you out, then think again.... That would be a "loophole". Only when you truly understand this
information, (by making
the love of Freedom, and not the love of Money, your #1 focus), then everything will fall into place, and
you can go
out and apply the "principles" in the world as a true "principal" of the account. This is how R lives day
to day, and it is
all done without the use of Federal Reserve Notes, or debt instruments of any kind.
If I can offer a word of caution to anyone thinking about using "Redemption" in court, it is this : DO
NOT try to start
learning this or using this process because you have gotten into trouble. Instead, start learning it NOW,
so you know
what to do in case any problems come along in the future. If you are confronted with an immediate
problem, there is
NO TIME to learn this material. Average Expected time span for learning this should be 1 1/2 to 2 years
minimum,
more like 3 or 4 years. THIS IS NOT A QUICK-FIX for your problems, because if you have not
internalized it, the
system will eat you up through a technique called "Bluffing". And sometimes bluffing can consist of
several weeks in
jail, or threats of life sentences, or who knows what they'll come up with, but the fact is that they have to
"balance their
books and accounting records" and that is where "Accepted for Value" comes in". They have a "Tax
Liability" on their
hands, and they are now the criminals. (If you want to make this your life, I would recommend a couple
of classes on
the following : Basic Accounting, Business Law, Commercial Law, and Real Estate. These are not
necessary, but this is
not the sort of stuff you just "play with". You are either a Sovereign or you aren't, and it wouldn't hurt to
know your
"stuff".)
The entirety of it boils down to this :
1. They are trying to get you to testify, you are trying to get them to witness.
2. They are trying to get you to admit there is "money", you are trying to get them to admit there isn't.
AND, one thing I would like to add here for all the critics of R and the "Redemption" process :
178
Everything that has been criticized so far, in the media light, like Militia Watchdog, Larry Becrafty and
various other
groups is flawed because of this one simple fact; They have been criticizing other people's interpretations
of R's
information, having no direct info. from R, himself. All of the fallacies that have been exposed were
actually other
people's writings and interpretations of R's philosophy. None of the "exposed fallacies" have been from
information
gleamed from the "Transcripts", only from sources like the ones mentioned above, and others.
Here are some items for consideration :
The system is set up to mimic the electrical, or energetic system flow of our bodies. Electricity or energy
is the "key"
here. In our society, we use money (or so we call it) for all transactions. This money is often called
"currency".
Currency is electrical flow. The court is always after your money, or currency, hence most of it ends up
going to the
courts. The courts are set up to regulate this currency flow. That's why they call them "circuit courts".
Now, when you
interrupt currency flow, what happens? You are charged! So the system charges you with 12 counts of
such and such,
but in reality it is "financial", and electrical, and now they have set up 12 "accounts" for you in your
name, that you are
charged with owing on. BUT, since we don't know this, we don't ever "pay" the account and it remains
open in escrow,
and your body is then held as the collateral against the debt, and it is said "You are paying your "debt" to
society." How
many times have you heard the expression "released on his own recognizance"? This literally means "to
recognize the
debt" according to the law dictionaries. When you are freed from prison there is a "release", and when
you are let out of
the army it is called a "discharge".
And finally, the definition for the word "charge" from Black's Law 4th reads as follows : v. "To impose a
burden,
duty, obligation, or lien; to create a claim against property; to claim; to demand; to accuse; to instruct a
jury on matters
of law. To impose a tax, duty, or trust. - In Commercial transactions, to bill or invoice." & n. "An
incumbrance, lien,
or claim; a burden or load; an obligation or duty; a liability; an accusation" -- then a little further down,
it says
"Conversion of electrical energy into chemical energy within a cell or storage battery". -- (This would be
our body) -
And for the word "charges" -- "The expenses which have been incurred, or disbursements made, in
connection with a
contract, suit or business transaction. (So there you have it...for those with eyes to see, and ears to
hear....)
If you want to tell the difference between someone who understands "redemption" and someone who
doesn't, then all
you have to do is ask them...."Do you want to be charged?" (with a criminal offense) If they say "yes",
then they
probably understand what they are doing, and if they don't want to be charged, then they obviously don't
179
understand
"redemption" at all, and they are still into "dishonor", not "acceptance".
According to R, you want to be charged, because then they have to give you the "property". What they
usually do, is
the attorney steals the charge, and is holding it "in bar", and not paying the taxes on it, or making the
"tax return".
When you do your acceptance, the attorney becomes the delinquent on the tax, and liable for the
charges.
There have been a few cases recently which indicate that the criminals within the system have resorted
to new tactics
to steer people away from this info., and from applying it in court. A few cases recently resulted in
criminal trials,
where, after sentencing, the person was put in jail, but only briefly. One person spent a whole day in and
they released
him on a "technicality". He was supposed to do "time", but not 24 hours, more like a few months, but
they let him go.
Why? Because of the accounting. They have to, or else, they are in big trouble! - What I am saying here,
is that they are
testing people more and more to see where they are within all of this. Whether they are using it to get
out of something,
or whether they truly understand what they are doing. That is what it all boils down to, so don't do
anything without
knowing what you are doing. -- Before, when we applied this process, they backed off right away. But
when they
realize that everyone and their grandmother is going to be doing this soon, they have to make it look like
it isn't
working. And that is exactly what they are doing right now, and putting people to the test. This used to
be called
something like "trial by fire". More recently, it was known as the "inquisition", but now it has become
romanticized by
calling it "courtroom drama".
Lately, alot of people have been writing in asking questions such as "If there isn't anyone out there
teaching this
correctly, and everything I have been learning is somewhat incorrect, then what is correct and what is
incorrect? How
do I know the difference? -- Usually, the answer I give is this : "Apply the principles". - Which means,
read the
transcripts over and over AND the interpretive writings until most of your questions go away naturally
by "applying the
principles". - Then, you still may have questions left over, naturally. - So I have made up a page and
asked a friend to
respond to some "general questions" frequently asked - Click Here! to goto that page.
I wanted to express a few things to the many people attempting to learn "Redemption" at this time.
These are a few
of my rare thoughts I will share on this matter with the public. For all those who study these principles.
The main thing you want to remember is that "we are not opposed to the government" or what they do.
Everything
they do must be for our benefit, or else we need to request they do as we wish. In order for them to "do
as we wish", we
need to have a clear understanding of what they can and cannot do, and what they are required to do
180
according to
THEIR OWN RULES. This is perhaps the most important thing to remember at all times. Redemption
is about
"Acceptance" and not "dishonor". Acceptance means accepting everything, but accepting it for value.
Especially now,
in these times of war, like Bush said, "You are either with us, or you are in support of the terrorists, and
you too will be
considered a terrorist" or something to that effect. It is important to remember that if you want change
from within
OUR government, which belongs to us, we the people..., then we better wake up from our positions as
debtors, and
return to our rightful positions as masters and creditors of this nation. Then, and only then, can we
"effect" government
and produce the outcome we desire. A "debtor" has no rights to effect the financial flow of their
corporation. The
creditors direct the actions and financial decisions of the corporation.
Next.... The reason, I believe, that "Redemption" is being fought by those in power is due to several
reasons. Mostly,
the MIS-understanding of what this is really all about and how it works, combined with a serious refusal
to admit when
one is wrong about something or has learned something wrong and has been applying it their whole life
to the
detriment of themselves and society. The "Private" (flesh and blood) will ALWAYS be SUPREME over
the artificial
corporation (UNITED STATES, DISNEYLAND, or any other ALL CAPS CORPORATION. But we
have many
people in power who have hidden behind the "corporate veil", and have been abusing their power over
the private
individual. It has become a "way of life" so much so, that to think or question for a moment even....that
the private
individual retains his status regardless....seems absurd to most in society. Yet, those same people
question how the
government can take all their rights away while they can't so much as complain. More and more,
especially these days,
since Sept. 11, people are asking themselves, "How can the government take this much power for
themselves and do all
these things?" and the answer lies in this statement : "The government can do whatever it wants to in the
capacity of the
CORPORATION, but it does not affect the private individual who knows how to retain his or her own
privacy". -- This
is something very difficult for the power structure to come to terms with, and who can blame them?
After all these
years of manipulating society to think we are all slaves, a few people have woken up to the fraud that
has been
perpetrated, and now they are scrambling to keep their ranks of ignorant. It is very similar to the Taliban
wanting to
keep hold of their soldiers when most of them are defecting over to the Northen Alliance. The reason :
They see the
new ORDER coming and they want to get in line instead of being left behind or left out. They see the
benefits of
181
change instead of holding onto the "old mentality". Ths was the inevidible consequence in Afghanistan as
much as it is
the inevidible consequence of "Redemption". "Redemption" once fully understood by a good portion of
people will
sweep the country and change everything as we know it today. I have full confidence in this. I know of
several people
who are utilizing these principles sucessfully in their life without much problem. The reason is because
they understand
what they are doing, and nobody gets "injured" or "damaged" in an way. This is the way of the "Jedi",
who fully
understands the talk they talk and the walk they walk.
On May 23, 1933, Congressman Louis T. McFadden brought formal charges against the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, The Comptroller of the Currency and the
Secretary of United States Treasury for numerous criminal acts, including but not limited to,
CONSPIRACY, FRAUD, UNLAWFUL CONVERSION, AND TREASON.
RUBY RIDGE
There are NO statute of Limitations on MURDER!
Officials at FBI probed, rewarded
Senior FBI executives received cash bonuses and promotions while under investigation for suspected
misconduct
during an internal bureau review of the August 1992 standoff at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, that claimed three
lives.
The Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General yesterday said in a report the bonuses and
promotions went to
former FBI Deputy Director Larry A. Potts, later demoted and suspended for improper oversight of the
deadly siege;
and E. Michael Kahoe, a senior FBI executive sentenced to prison for destroying a critical Ruby Ridge
document.
Other cash awards and promotions, the report said, went to Danny O. Coulson, former deputy assistant
director who
worked for Mr. Potts; and three senior FBI executives, Charles Mathews, Robert E. Walsh and Van A.
Harp, accused
of not conducting proper after-the-fact investigations to determine what happened at Ruby Ridge.
"While a presumption of innocence is usually appropriate while a subject is under investigation,
rewarding a subject
who is later found to have committed misconduct can result in adverse consequences," the report said.
"The FBI should
be mindful of the message it sends to both the investigators in a particular case and the rest of the FBI
when subjects of
an investigation are promoted or receive bonuses or awards while under investigation.
"This is especially true where high-level officials are under investigation, because investigators may
interpret the
giving of an award as an indication that senior management has already judged the merits of the
investigation," it said.
The inspector general's report is the result of an investigation to determine whether the FBI's system of
discipline is
unfair because senior bureau executives are treated more leniently than rank-and-file agents.
Investigators used the
Ruby Ridge incident as an example.
182
Ruby Ridge Incident:
The report concluded there was insufficient evidence to prove a double-standard of discipline, in part,
because of the
low number of cases involving senior executives, but that the FBI "suffered and still suffers from a
strong, and not
unreasonable, perception among employees that a double standard exists."
In the Ruby Ridge case, Vicki Weaver was killed Aug. 22, 1992, by FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi. He was
acting on shootonsight
orders, although it has never been determined who authorized a change in the bureau's rules of
engagement
that allowed the shooting. Her son, Samuel, 14, and Deputy U.S. Marshal William F. Degan, died in a
separate
shootout a day earlier.
Mrs. Weaver's husband, Randy, had been sought on weapons violations. He and a family friend, Kevin
Harris, also
were wounded. They were charged in Mr. Degan's death, but acquitted by an Idaho jury.
Mr. Potts and Mr. Coulson, who directed the siege from Washington, denied ordering changes in the
bureau's deadlyforce
policy. But Eugene F. Glenn, who headed the Salt Lake City office and was the on-site commander at
Ruby
Ridge, and Richard Rogers, head of the FBI's hostage-rescue team, have disputed the claims of Mr.
Potts and Mr.
Coulson.
Among the FBI executives named in the report, only Mr. Kahoe was found guilty of any wrongdoing.
Several were
recommended for suspension or demotion, but only letters of censure were ever issued.
The inspector general's report said Mr. Potts was named acting deputy director in 1994, prior to the
completion of an
internal FBI investigation into government conduct during the Ruby Ridge siege. The report said despite
Mr. Potts'
receipt in January 1995 of a letter of censure in the Ruby Ridge matter, he was named deputy director in
May 1995.
According to the report, Mr. Coulson was promoted to agent-in-charge in Baltimore in April 1993 while
still a focus of
the FBI's internal Ruby Ridge investigation. It said he was given a cash award of $5,590 in November
1993, although
the investigation remained active.
Mr. Coulson was named to lead the FBI's Dallas office in September 1994, the report said, before
recommendations
regarding discipline in Ruby Ridge had been completed. He later received a letter of censure for his role
in the standoff.
Mr. Walsh received a cash award of 5 percent of his salary while under investigation by the Justice
Department's Office
of Professional Responsibility (OPR) in the Ruby Ridge matter, the report said. It said he was named
agent-in-charge of
the FBI's San Francisco field office in December 1996 while he was the focus of a separate criminal
probe of Ruby
Ridge by U.S. Attorney Michael Stiles in Philadelphia.
According to the report, FBI Director Louis J. Freeh asked the OPR and Mr. Stiles about the
183
promotion, and the OPR
did not object, Mr. Stiles declined comment. The report said a memo to Attorney General Janet Reno
requesting
approval for Mr. Walsh's move to San Francisco did not mention the investigation.
Mr. Harp, now head of the Washington field office, was named agent-in-charge in Cleveland after OPR
began an
investigation into the inadequacy of his after-the-fact Ruby Ridge probe, the report said. It said a memo
to Mr. Freeh
presenting Mr. Harp's qualifications did not mention the ongoing probe, although the inspector general's
report said Mr.
Freeh was aware of the investigation and its scope.
In addition, the report said, Mr. Harp was given a cash bonus of $8,099 in November 1997 while under
investigation in
the Ruby Ridge matter and a $14,208 bonus in October 1998 while that inquiry continued and a separate
probe began
into his role in the receipt of travel reimbursements by FBI senior executives to attend a 1997 retirement
party for Mr.
Potts.
Mr. Walsh and Mr. Harp had been assigned to investigate accusations of misconduct by the government
in the Ruby
Ridge matter. The OPR later said they did not take sufficiently aggressive steps in the probe and avoided
uncovering
the full truth to protect Mr. Potts and Mr. Coulson.
The report said Mr. Mathews was promoted to the FBI's Senior Executive Service (SES) in July 1995
after the OPR
had begun its investigation into accusations that a separate internal Ruby Ridge inquiry he headed was
inadequate. It
said Mr. Mathews, who served as a top assistant to Mr. Coulson in Portland, Ore., from 1988 to 1990,
was promoted to
agent-in-charge in New Orleans in June 1997 while the OPR investigation continued.
Mr. Mathews was assigned to find out what, if any, disciplinary action should be taken against FBI
personnel involved
in the Ruby Ridge incident. His report recommended discipline for several agents at the scene, but did
not contain any
recommendations for discipline for Mr. Potts or Mr. Coulson.
The inspector general's report said Mr. Kahoe got a cash award of $7,126 in November 1993 during the
initial Ruby
Ridge investigation and was named agent-in-charge in Jacksonville, Fla., in June 1994 while still under
investigation.
He pleaded guilty in October 1996 to obstruction of justice and was sentenced to 18 months in prison.
Mr. Kahoe destroyed a November 1992 after-action report that referred to "problems" in the FBI's
conduct during the
Weaver siege. The document had been sought by federal prosecutors in Idaho, but was never made
available.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20021116-28573828.htm
(This is an excerpt from a remarkable book by Gerry Spence called "From
Freedom To Slavery, The Rebirth Of Tyranny In America.")
First They Came For The Fascists....
by Gerry Spence
Randy Weaver's wife was dead, shot through the head while she clutched her
184
child to her breast. His son was shot, twice. First they shot the child's
arm, probably destroyed the arm. The child cried out. Then, as the child
was running they shot him in the back. Randy Weaver himself had been shot
and wounded and Kevin Harris, a kid the Weavers had all but adopted was
dying of a chest wound. The blood hadn't cooled on Ruby Hill before the
national media announced that I had taken the defense of Randy Weaver. Then
all hell broke loose. My sister wrote me decrying my defense of this
"racist". There were letters to the editors in several papers that
expressed their disappointment that I would lend my services to a person
with Weaver's beliefs. And I received a letter from my close friend Alan
Hirschfield, the former chairman of chief executive officer of Columbia
Pictures and Twentieth Century Fox, Imploring me to withdraw.
He Wrote:
"After much thought I decided to write this letter to you. It represents a
very profound concern on my part regarding your decision to represent Randy
Weaver. While I applaud and fully understand your motives in taking such a
case, I nonetheless find this individual defense troubling. It is so
because of the respectability and credibility your involvement imparts to a
cause which I find despicable.
.(....remainder of letter deleted for brevity, but wanted Gerry to not
defend Weaver, as it would support the militant groups......)
The next morning I delivered the following letter by carrier to Mr
Hirschfield
"I cherish your letter. It reminds me once again of our friendship, for
only friends can speak and hear each other in matters so deeply a part of
the soul. And your letter reminds me as well, as we must all be reminded,
of the unspeakable pain every Jew has suffered from the horrors of the
Holocaust. No better evidence of our friendship could be shown than your
intense caring concerning what I do and what I stand for.
I met Randy Weaver in jail on the evening of his surrender. His eyes had no
light in them. He was unshaven and dirty. He was naked except for yellow
plastic prison coveralls, and he was cold. His small feet were clad in
rubber prison sandals. In the stark setting of the prison conference room
he seemed diminutive and fragile. He had spent 11 days and nights in a
standoff against the government and he had lost. His wife was dead. His son
was dead. His friend was near death. Weaver himself had been wounded. He
had lost his freedom. He had lost it all. And now he stood face to face
with a stranger who towered over him and whose words were not words of
comfort. When I spoke, you, Alan, were on my mind.
"My name is Gerry Spence" I began. "I'm the lawyer you've been told about.
Before we begin to talk I want you to understand that I do not share any of
your political or religious beliefs. Many of my dearest friends are Jews.
My daughter is married to a Jew. My sister is married to a black man. She
has adopted a black child. I deplore what the Nazis stand for. If I defend
you I will not defend your political beliefs or your religious beliefs, but
your right as an American citizen to a fair trial." His quiet answer was,
"That is all I ask." Then I motioned him to a red plastic chair and I took
a similar one. And as the guards marched by and from time to time peered
in, he told his story.
Alan, you are a good and fair man. That I know. Were it otherwise we would
185
not be such friends. Yet it is your pain I hear most clearly--exacerbated,
I know, by the fact that your friend should represent your enemy. Yet what
drew me to this case was my own pain. Let me tell you the facts.
Randy Weaver's principal crime against the government had been his failure
to appear in court on a charge of possessing illegal firearms. The first
crime was not his. He had been entrapped--intentionally, systematically,
patiently, purposefully entrapped--by a federal agent who solicited him to
cut off, contrary to Federal law, the barrels of a couple of shotguns.
Randy Weaver never owned an illegal weapon in his life. He was not engaged
in the manufacture of illegal weapons. The idea of selling an illegal
firearm had never entered his mind until the government agent suggested it
and encouraged him to act illegally. The government knew he needed the
money. He is as poor as an empty cupboard. He had three daughters, a son
and a wife to support. He lived in a small house in the woods without
electricity or running water. Although he is a small, frail man, with tiny,
delicate hands who probably weighs no more than a hundred and twenty
pounds, he made an honest living by chopping firewood and by seasonal work
as a logger.
This man is wrong, his beliefs are wrong. His relationship to mankind is
wrong. He was perhaps legally wrong when he failed to appear and defend
himself in court. But the first wrong was not his. Nor was the first wrong
the government's. The first wrong was ours.
In this country we embrace the myth that we are still a democracy when we
know that we are not a democracy, that we are not free, that the government
does not serve us but subjugates us. Although we give lip service to the
notion of freedom, we know the government is no longer the servant of the
people but, at last has become the people's master. We have stood by like
timid sheep while the wolf killed, first the weak, then the strays, then
those on the outer edges of the flock, until at last the entire flock
belonged to the wolf. We did not care about the weak or about the strays.
they were not a part of the flock. We did not care about those on the outer
edges. They had chosen to be there. But as the wolf worked its way towards
the center of the flock we discovered that we were now on the outer edges.
Now we must look the wolf squarely in the eye. That we did not do so when
the first of us was ripped and torn and eaten was the first wrong. It was
our wrong.
That none of us felt responsible for having lost our freedom has been a
part of an insidious progression. In the beginning the attention of the
flock was directed not to the marauding wolf but to our own deviant members
within the flock. We rejoiced as the wolf destroyed them for they were our
enemies. We were told that the weak lay under the rocks while we faced the
blizzards to rustle our food, and we did not care when the wolf took them.
We argued that they deserved it. When one of our flock faced the wolf alone
it was always eaten. Each of us was afraid of the wolf, but as a flock we
were not afraid. Indeed the wolf cleansed the herd by destroying the weak
and dismembering the aberrant element within. As time went by, strangely,
the herd felt more secure under the rule of the wolf. It believed that by
belonging to this wolf it would remain safe from all the other wolves. But
we were eaten just the same.
No one knows better than children of the Holocaust how the lessons of
186
history must never be forgotten. Yet Americans, whose battle cry was once,
"Give me liberty or give me death", have sat placidly by as a new king was
crowned. In America a new king was crowned by the shrug of our shoulders
when our neighbors were wrongfully seized. A new king was crowned when we
capitulated to a regime that is no longer sensitive to people, but to non
people--to corporations, to money and to power. The new king was crowned
when we turned our heads as the new king was crowned as we turned our heads
as the poor and the forgotten and the damned were rendered mute and
defenseless, not because they were evil but because, in the scheme of our
lives, they seemed unimportant, not because they were essentially dangerous
but because they were essentially powerless. The new king was crowned when
we cheered the government on as it prosecuted the progeny of our ghettos
and filled our prisons with black men whose first crime was that they were
born in the ghettos. We cheered the new king on as it diluted our right to
be secure in our homes against unlawful searches and to be secure in the
courts against unlawful evidence. We cheered the new king on because we
were told that our sacred rights were but "loopholes" but which our
enemies: the murderers and rapists and thieves and drug dealers, escaped.
We were told that those who fought for our rights, the lawyers, were worse
than the thieves who stole from us in the night, that our juries were
irresponsible and ignorant and ought not to be trusted. We watched with
barely more than a mumble as the legal system that once protected us became
populated with judges who were appointed by the new king. At last the new
king was crowned when we forgot the lessons of history, that:when the
rights of our enemies have been wrested from them, we have lost our own
rights as well, for the same rights serve both citizen and criminal.
When Randy Weaver failed to appear in court because he had lost his trust
in the government we witnessed the fruit of our crime. The government
indeed had no intent to protect his rights. The government had but one
purpose, as it remains today, the disengagement of this citizen from
society. Those who suffered and died in the Holocaust must have exquisitely
understood such illicit motivations of power.
I have said that I was attracted to the case out of my own pain. Let me
tell you the facts: a crack team of trained government marksmen sneaked on
to Randy Weaver's small isolated acreage on a reconnaissance mission
preparatory to a contemplated arrest. They wore camouflage suits and were
heavily armed. They gave Randy no warning of their coming. They came
without a warrant. They never identified themselves.
The Weavers owned 3 dogs, 2 small crossbred collie mutts and a yellow lab,
a big pup a little over a year old whose most potent weapon was his tail
with which he could beat a full grown man to death. The dog, Striker, was a
close member of the Weaver family. Not only was he the companion of the
children, but in winter he pulled the family sled to haul their water
supply from the spring below. When the dogs discovered the intruders they
raised a ruckus, and Randy his friend Kevin, and Randy's 14 year old son
Sam, grabbed their guns and followed the dogs to investigate.
When the government agents were confronted with the barking dog, they did
what men who have been taught to kill do. They shot Striker. The boy,
barely larger than a 10 year old child, heard the dog's yelp, saw the dog
fall dead. and as a 14 year old might, he returned the fire. Then the
187
government agents shot the child in the arm. He turned and ran. the arm
flopping, and when he did, the officers, still unidentified as such, shot
the child in the back and killed him.
Kevin Harris witnessed the shooting of the dog. Then he saw Sam being shot
as the boy turned and ran. To Kevin there was no alternative. He knew if he
ran these intruders, whoever they were, would kill him as well. In defense
of himself he raised his rifle and shot in the direction of the officer who
had shot and killed the boy. Then while the agents were in disarray, Kevin
retreated to the Weaver cabin.
In the meantime Randy Weaver had been off in another direction and had only
heard the shooting, the dog's yelp and the gunfire that followed. Randy
hollered for his son and shot his shotgun into the air to attract the boy.
"Come on home Sam, Come home."
Over and over he called.
Finally he heard the boy call back "I'm comin' Dad". Those were the last
words he ever heard from his son.
Later that same day, Randy, Kevin, and Vicki Weaver, Randy's wife went down
to where the boy lay and carried his body back to an outbuilding near the
cabin. There they removed the child's clothing and bathed his wounds and
prepared the body. The next evening Weaver's oldest daughter, Sarah,
sixteen, Kevin, and Randy went back to the shed to have a last look at Sam.
When they did, government snipers opened fire. Randy was hit in the
shoulder. The three turned and ran for the house where Vicki, with her 10
month old baby in her arms stood holding the door open. As the 3 entered
the house Vicki was shot and slowly fell to her knees, her head resting on
the floor like one kneeling in prayer. Randy ran up and took the baby that
she clutched, and then he lifted his wife's head. Half her face was blown
away.
Kevin was also hit. Huge areas of muscle in his arm were blown out, and his
lung was punctured in several places. Randy and his 16 year old daughter
stretched the dead mother on the floor of the cabin and covered he with a
blanket where she remained for over 8 days as the siege progressed.
By this time there were officers by the score, troops, armored personnel
carriers, helicopters, radios, televisions, robots, and untold armaments
surrounding the little house. I will not burden you with the misery and
horror the family suffered in this stand-off. I will tell you that finally
Bo Gritz, Randy's former commander in the special forces, came to help in
the negotiations. Gritz told Randy that if he would surrender, Gritz would
guarantee him a fair trial, and before the negotiations were ended, Randy
came to the belief that I would represent him. Although Gritz had contacted
me before I had spoke to Randy, I had only agreed to talk to Randy. But the
accuracy of what was said between Gritz and me and what was hard by Randy
somehow got lost in the horror, and Randy's belief that I would represent
him if he surrendered was in part, his motivation for finally submitting to
arrest.
And so my friend Allan, you can now understand the pain I feel in this
case. It is pain that comes from the realization that we have permitted a
government to act in our name and in our behalf in a criminal fashion. It
is the pain of watching the government as it now attempts to lie about its
criminal complicity in this affair and to cover its crimes by charging
188
Randy with crimes he did not commit, including murder. It is the pain of
seeing an innocent woman with a child in her arms murdered and innocent
children subjected to these atrocities. Indeed, as a human being I feel
Randy's irrepressible pain and horror and grief.
I also feel your pain, my friend. Yet I know that in the end, if you were
the judge at the trial of Adolph Eichmann, you would have insisted that he
not have ordinary council, but the best council. In the same way, if you
were the judge in Randy's case, and you had a choice, I have no doubt that
despite your own pain you might well have appointed me to defend him. In
the end you must know that the Holocaust must never stand for part
justice,or average justice but for the most noble of ideals--that even the
enemies of the Jews themselves must receive the best justice the system can
provide. If it were otherwise the meaning of the Holocaust would be
accordingly besmirched.
Alan, I agree with your arguments. They are proper and they are true. I
agree that my defense of Randy Weaver may attach a legitimacy and dignity
to his politics and religion. But it may, as well, stand for the
proposition that there are those who don't condone this kind of criminal
action by our government. I view the defense of Randy Waver's case as an
opportunity to address a more vital issue, one that transcends a white
separatist movement or notions of the supremacy of one race over another,
for the ultimate enemy of any people is not the angry hate groups that
fester within, but a government itself that has lost its respect for the
individual. The ultimate enemy of democracy is not the drug dealer or the
crooked politician or the crazed skinhead. The ultimate enemy is the new
king that has become so powerful it can murder its own citizens with
impunity.
To the same extent that Randy Weaver cannot find justice in this country,
we too will be deprived of justice. At last, my defense of Randy Weaver is
a defense of every Jew and every Gentile, for every black and every gay who
loves freedom and deplores tyranny.
Although I understand that it will be easy for my defense of Randy Weaver
to be confused with an endorsement of the politics of the Aryan Nation, my
challenge will be to demonstrate that we can still be a nation where the
rights of the individual, despite his race, color, religion, remain
supreme. If this be not so, then we are all lost. If this is not so, it is
because we have forgotten the lessons of our histories--the history of the
American Revolution as well as the history of the Holocaust.
And so my friend Allan, If I were to withdraw from the defense of Randy
Weaver as you request, I would be required to abandon my belief that this
system has any remaining virtue. I would be more at fault than the federal
government that has murdered these people, for I have not been trained to
murder but to defend. I would be less of a man than my client who had the
courage of his convictions. I would lose all respect for myself. I would be
unable to any longer be your friend, for friendship must always have its
foundation in respect. Therefore as my friend, I ask that you not require
this of me. I ask instead for your prayers, your understanding and your
continued love.
As ever,
Gerry Spence
189
Jackson Hole, Wyoming
"From Freedom To Slavery, The Rebirth Of Tyranny In America"
by Gerry Spence
St. Martin's Press
175 Fifth Ave
NY, NY, 10010 USA
Charges dropped in Ruby Ridge case
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/charges.htm
Prosecutor declines to prosecute FBI sniper in Ruby Ridge case
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/ruby1.htm
Lon Tomohisa Horiuchi
IDAHO v. HORIUCHI
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/9830149p.pdf
Friends: About time. Horiuchi should have been prosecuted before he went down to Waco to shoot
women and
children there.
Jim Hardin
The Freedom Page
http://www.freedompage.ws
Horiuchi Fired At Waco -- Cases Found
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/horiuchi.htm
"Atrocities at Ruby Ridge"
http://www.apfn.org/Movies/ruby.wmv
Court: FBI Sharpshooter Can Be Tried
http://www.newsday.com/ap/topnews/ap978.htm
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) 05/05/01 -- A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that an FBI
sharpshooter can be tried for manslaughter in the slaying of white
separatist Randy Weaver's wife during the 1992 Ruby Ridge standoff in
Idaho.
In a case testing whether federal agents are immune to state prosecution,
the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cleared the way for Idaho prosecutors
to charge agent Lon T. Horiuchi in the death of Vicki Weaver, 42. The
federal government declined to prosecute the agent.
''When federal officers violate the Constitution, either through
malice or excessive zeal, they can be held accountable for violating
the state's criminal laws,'' Judge Alex Kozinski wrote in the ruling.
The court agreed with Boundary County, Idaho, attorney Ramsey Clark, a
former U.S. attorney general who argued in December that immunity
cannot be granted until there's a trial to determine whether Horiuchi
acted unlawfully.
''When federal law enforcement agents carry out their responsibilities,
they can cause destruction of property, loss of freedom, and as in this
case, loss of life -- all which might violate the state's criminal laws,''
Kozinski said.
There was no immediate comment from Clark.
The standoff in northern Idaho prompted a nationwide debate on the use
of force by federal agencies. Ruby Ridge, where the Weaver family lived,
has become synonymous with high-profile clashes, including the Branch
Davidian siege near Waco, Texas, the Freemen standoff and the Oklahoma
City bombing.
190
The standoff began after federal agents tried to arrest Randy Weaver
for failing to appear in court to face charges of selling two illegal
sawed-off shotguns.
The cabin had been under surveillance for several months when the violence
egan with the deaths of Deputy U.S. Marshal William Degan, Weaver's
14-year-old son, Samuel, and the Weaver family dog, Striker.
During the standoff, Horiuchi shot and killed Weaver's wife and wounded
family friend Kevin Harris. Witnesses said the sharpshooter fired as
Vicki Weaver held open the cabin door, her 10-month-old baby in her
arms, to let her husband, their daughter and Harris inside.
Horiuchi has said he didn't see Vicki Weaver when he fired at Harris,
who was armed and was ducking inside the cabin. He also said he fired
to protect a government helicopter overhead.
A wounded Harris later surrendered, as did Weaver. Both men were acquitted
of murder, conspiracy and other federal charges. Weaver was convicted
of failing to appear for trial on the firearms charge.
The Justice Department last summer settled the last civil lawsuit
stemming from the standoff. The government admitted no wrongdoing,
but paid Harris $380,000 to drop his $10 million civil damage suit.
In 1995, the government paid Weaver and his three surviving children
$3.1 million for the killings of Weaver's wife and son.
Court case, Idaho vs. Horiuchi, 98-30149:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/
From the drawing made by Horiuchi during an interview with the FBI at a hotel, on hotel stationery, he
draws in no
closed curtains at all. In the lower right-hand corner of the window we see two partial heads
From Freedom to Slavery, by Gerry Spence
Written by Randy Weaver's defense attorney, the second chapter of the paperback edition is one of the
best accounts of
what happened at Ruby Ridge. With Gerry Spence's permission, it is reproduced here.
http://www.rubyridge.
com/gspence.htm
Tuesday June 5 4:27 PM ET
Court: FBI Sharpshooter Can Be Tried
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A federal appeals court ruled
Tuesday that an FBI (news - web sites) sharpshooter
can be tried for manslaughter in the slaying of the
wife of white separatist Randy Weaver during the 1992
Ruby Ridge standoff in Idaho.
In a case testing whether federal agents are immune to
state prosecution, an 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) cleared
the way for Idaho prosecutors to charge agent Lon T.
Horiuchi for the death of Vicki Weaver.
The federal government declined to prosecute the agent.
The appeals court reversed a three-judge panel from
the same circuit, disagreeing with arguments that it
didn't matter whether Weaver's death was the result of
excessive force.
Court weighs bid to try FBI agent:
191
Saturday, 23-Dec-00 14:03:50
24.14.28.77 writes:
Court weighs bid to try FBI agent: He
killed separatist's wife at Ruby Ridge
By Claire Cooper
Bee Legal Affairs Writer
(Published Dec. 21, 2000)
SAN FRANCISCO -- An 11-member panel of federal circuit judges gave
no indication Wednesday whether it will allow Idaho to prosecute an FBI
sharpshooter who killed a woman during the 1992 Ruby Ridge standoff.
As two of the nation's top legal talents presented sometimes emotional oral
arguments, the judges of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struggled with
concepts of official immunity and federal supremacy.
Arguing on the side of Idaho officials, former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey
Clark called FBI agent Lon T. Horiuchi's killing of Vicki Weaver a "summary
execution," a classic case of excessive force by police that's well within the
scope of the state courts to prosecute.
Seth Waxman, the U.S. solicitor general, countered that the freedom of
federal agents to act in crises is "a principle of surpassing importance." He
argued, "State prosecution of federal officers is terribly chilling in all but
extreme cases, and this is not one of them."
The case grew out of the fatal shooting of Weaver, the wife of separatist
leader Randy Weaver, as she stood holding her baby during the second week
of a standoff at the couple's Idaho cabin. Federal agents were attempting to
serve a weapons trafficking warrant. Horiuchi opened fire to keep the
Weavers' friend, Kevin Harris, from taking cover in the cabin.
Local prosecutors in Boundary County, Idaho, charged Horiuchi with
involuntary manslaughter after the U.S. Department of Justice announced it
would not prosecute him or his superiors.
A judge in Idaho threw out the case. A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit
upheld that action last June, saying Horiuchi made "an objectively reasonable
decision" to shoot. But the full 9th Circuit sent the case to an 11-judge panel
for a fresh look.
During Wednesday's arguments, only one judge, Andrew Kleinfeld of
Fairbanks, Alaska, appeared firmly to take Idaho's side, saying Horiuchi
should not be able to escape prosecution by claiming he was following orders.
But even Judge Alex Kozinski of Pasadena, who dissented strongly from the
ruling in June, was hard to read, challenging the lawyers on both sides.
"It is troubling," he said, to let 50 states "trump" the authority of federal agents by applying their
criminal laws.
Judge Pamela Rymer, also of Pasadena, said Horiuchi could not be
prosecuted if he had a "reasonable belief" that the shooting was necessary to
protect federal officers who were in danger.
Clark responded that the facts did not support any such belief, and much of
the oral argument session was devoted to questions and answers about
circumstances surrounding the shooting.
There is no deadline for the court's decision.
SOURCE:
http://www.capitolalert.com/news/capalert08.html
Subj: Re: Appeals Panel Hears Ruby Ridge Case
192
Date: 12/21/00 2:35:54 PM US Mountain Standard Time
From: (David T. Hardy)
To: WacoTragedyNews@aol.com
This is extremely interesting, since the 9th Circuit almost NEVER grants a
rehearing en banc. There are 21 or so judges there, and they sit in panels
of three. The original ruling was 2-1 in favor of Horiuchi.
If you're disatisfied, you can ask for rehearing en banc (in theory
that means to ALL the judges, sitting as a huge panel, but in 9th Cir. it's
actually to a large 10 judge panel). The rules say that's granted only
where you have a split in authority inside the circuit.... this 3 judge
panel said X is not the law, but another 3 judge panel a year ago said X
was he law. Even at that, it's almost impossible to get. In Sheriff Mack's
appeal, we had four splits in authority--right down to this panel saying a
given past decision had not been good law since another case ten years ago,
but a different panel only the year before had said it was good law. And
the Ninth Circuit refused rehearing en banc!
I told Ramsey of a point I'd make: (1) there is no federal law against
a federal agent killing a civilian. None. There are federal laws against
civilians killing agents, but not the other way around. (2) under this
decision, there are no state laws against killing which can be applied to
agents. So (3) federal agents actually are licensed to kill, completely
above the law. If in the course of duty, a federal agent kills someone, he
cannot be prosecuted by anyone.
Which also means, I just discovered, that Congress rates our lives as
less than that of a federal dog. This last session, Congress passed a
statute imposing 1 year's imprisonment for assaulting a federal police dog,
and 10 years' imprisonment for seriously injuring or killing one.
Appeals Panel Hears Ruby Ridge Case
SOURCE:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20001220/pl/ruby_ridge_1.html
Wednesday December 20 11:41 PM ET
Appeals Panel Hears Ruby Ridge Case
By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -
The FBI shooting of a white separatist's wife during the
1992 Ruby Ridge standoff was recounted in a federal courtroom Wednesday in a case that is testing
whether federal
agents are immune to state prosecution.The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) didn't
immediately
indicate whether prosecutors would be allowed to try agent! Lon T. Horiuchi on manslaughter charges
for the death of
Randy Weaver's wife, Vicki. The federal government declined to prosecute the agent.Wednesday's
hearing stemmed
from a request by Boundary County,Idaho, prosecutors, who argued in court papers that the shooting
was done by a
``wild-headed government sniper.'' The county asked the court to review its June decision that said the
county couldn't
prosecute the sharpshooter for ``actions taken in pursuit of his duties as a federal law enforcement
officer.'' Attorney
Ramsey Clark, arguing for the county, said the court must reverse that decision in a case defining ``when
government
193
agents can kill with immunity.''
Solicitor General Seth Waxman told the 11 judges that it didn't matter
whether Vicki Weaver's death was the result of excessive force.``These
federal law enforcement officials are privileged to do what would otherwise
be unlawful if done by a private citizen,'' Waxman told the panel during the
hour-long hearing. ``It's a fundamental function of our government.''Judge
Alex Kozinski questioned Waxman's argument, saying: ``If the Constitution
does not provide limitations for federal agents' actions, then what does?''
Much of the discussion focused on the facts surrounding Vicki Weaver's
killing. Judge Susan Graber asked whether Horiuchi, who wasn't in the
courtroom, knew the unarmed woman was in the line of fire when he shot at Weaver's cabin.
``Reasonable people
could differ whether Agent Horiuchi's actions were reasonable or not,'' she said.``You really don't know
the facts until
you go to trial,'' Clark responded.
Waxman said the facts are irrelevant, and that federal agents subject to
various state laws could chill the government's ability even to guard the
president.The court didn't indicate when it would rule.
During the weeklong standoff at northern Idaho's remote Ruby Ridge, Horiuchi shot and killed Weaver's
wife and
wounded family friend Kevin Harris. Witnesses have said the sharpshooter fired as Vicki Weaver held
open the cabin
door, her 10-month-old baby in her arms, to let Randy Weaver, their daughter and Harris in.
Horiuchi maintains he didn't see Vicki Weaver when he fired at Harris, who was armed and was ducking
into the cabin
as federal agents attempted to arrest Randy Weaver on a weapons trafficking charge. He also has said he
fired to
protect a government helicopter overhead.
The Justice Department (news - web sites) this summer announced the
settlement of the last remaining civil lawsuit stemming from the standoff.
The government admitted no wrongdoing, but paid Harris $380,000 to drop his $10 million civil damage
suit.
In 1995, the government paid Weaver and his three surviving children $3.1
million for the killing of Weaver's wife and their son, Samuel. The
14-year-old boy died in a shootout with federal marshals that ignited the
siege. A deputy marshal was also killed.-
On the Net:9th Circuit Court of Appeals,case is
Idaho vs. Horiuchi, 98-30149: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov
WINDS - Kevin Harris Charged with Murder - Double Jeopardy From Ruby Ridge?
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/ruby.html
Court: FBI Sharpshooter May Be Charged in Ruby Ridge Slaying
Tuesday, June 5, 2001,
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that an FBI sharpshooter can be tried by
Idaho
prosecutors for manslaughter in the slaying of white separatist Randy Weaver's wife during the 1992
Ruby Ridge
standoff.
The ruling from a sharply divided 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revives a case mentioned in the
same breath as
Waco and cited by Timothy McVeigh as motivation for the Oklahoma City bombing.
194
It could also mean that FBI officials will be hauled into court to defend decisions made during the 11-
day confrontation
in northern Idaho. The agency is already stinging from recent gaffes in the bombing case and the recent
indictment of
agent Robert Hanssen on espionage charges.
The Ruby Ridge case is seen as a test of whether federal agents are immune from state prosecution. The
federal
government declined to prosecute agent Lon Horiuchi, but Tuesday's ruling clears the way for Idaho
prosecutors to
pursue charges against him in the death of Vicki Weaver, 42.
"When federal officers violate the Constitution, either through malice or excessive zeal, they can be held
accountable
for violating the state's criminal laws," Judge Alex Kozinski wrote in the 6-5 decision.
The court agreed with Idaho's contention that immunity cannot be granted until there is a hearing to
determine whether
Horiuchi acted unlawfully. If a judge rules Horiuchi broke the law, the case can go before a jury, the
court ruled.
The panel rejected arguments that it didn't matter whether Weaver's death was the result of excessive
force.
"When federal law enforcement agents carry out their responsibilities, they can cause destruction of
property, loss of
freedom, and as in this case, loss of life — all which might violate the state's criminal laws," Kozinski
said.
Horiuchi's attorney, Adam Hoffinger, declined comment and a Justice Department spokesman wouldn't
say whether the
decision will be appealed.
Outgoing FBI Director Louis J. Freeh said he was disappointed with the ruling and said the agency
stands behind
Horiuchi.
"As so often happens in law enforcement, split-second life and death decisions must be made by those
sworn to enforce
the law," Freeh said. "We continue to believe strongly agent Horiuchi met the legal standard that
protects law
enforcement officers when they carry out their duties, even when the consequence in hindsight is
regrettable."
Ramsey Clark, a former U.S. attorney general under President Johnson who argued the case for
Boundary County,
Idaho, called the ruling "courageous" and said it showed that law enforcement would be held
accountable for violence.
Randy Weaver also praised the decision.
"We've said all along that federal agents should be held accountable for their actions just like the rest of
us," Weaver
said from his home in Jefferson, Iowa. "If the state can't bring charges, who will hold them responsible?
"We're happy with the decision," he said. "The American people should be happy with the decision. It's a
good day for
America and the justice system."
Stephen Yagman, who also represented Idaho in the case, said the decision was a significant victory for
individual and
states' rights.
"It puts another nail in the open coffin ... of the FBI," he said.
195
The standoff prompted a nationwide debate on the use of force by federal agencies.
It began after federal agents tried to arrest Randy Weaver for failing to appear in court to face charges of
selling two
illegal sawed-off shotguns. His cabin had been under surveillance for several months.
The violence began with the deaths of Deputy U.S. Marshal William Degan, Weaver's 14-year-old son,
Samuel, and the
Weaver family dog, Striker.
Horiuchi later shot and killed Weaver's wife and wounded family friend Kevin Harris. Witnesses said the
sharpshooter
fired as Vicki Weaver held open the cabin door, her 10-month-old baby in her arms, to let her husband,
their daughter
and Harris inside.
Horiuchi has said he didn't see Vicki Weaver when he fired at Harris, who was armed and was ducking
inside the
cabin. He also said he fired to protect a government helicopter overhead.
The appeals court appeared troubled with the case. Those in dissent said the majority was using
hindsight in "dissecting
the mistakes" of Horiuchi.
They called the majority's opinion a "grave disservice" to FBI agents and argued that Horiuchi, who is
still an FBI
agent, should be immune from prosecution.
"Every day in this country, federal agents place their lives in the line of fire to secure the liberties that we
all hold dear,"
Judge Michael Daly Hawkins wrote for the minority. "There will be times when those agents make
mistakes, sudden
judgment calls that turn out to be horribly wrong.
"We seriously delude ourselves if we think we can serve the cause of liberty by throwing shackles on
those agents and
hauling them to the dock of a state criminal court when they make such mistakes."
The standoff ended after Harris and Weaver surrendered. Both men were acquitted of murder,
conspiracy and other
federal charges. Weaver was convicted of failing to appear for trial on the firearms charge.
In 1995, the government paid Weaver and his three surviving children $3.1 million for the killings of
Weaver's wife
and son.
The Justice Department last summer settled the last civil lawsuit stemming from the standoff. The
government admitted
no wrongdoing, but paid Harris $380,000 to drop his $10 million civil damage suit.
We live in a SICK SOCIETY
We tell the world that the American Way of Life is superior to any other way of life yet our culture and
society display
before the world’s poor, a pervasive moral and ethical sickness that is both hypocritical and selfdestructive.
In order to better understand how much of the rest of the world views us, pretend that you are an
anthropologist from
another world looking down at us. Following are a few of the symptoms of our SICK SOCIETY that
you would see.
1. DRUG ADDICTION: You would see Congress voting to spend tax dollars to subsidize the tobacco
industry. Then
you would see the billion dollar tobacco companies promote tobacco addiction. Next you would see
196
millions of
Americans hooked on the killer drug nicotine. Later you would witness mass human misery and
suffering from people
in the last throws of death from tobacco induced lung cancer and other diseases. Then you would watch
as millions of
dollars were spent in a losing battle against lung cancer. Your last view would be of the graveside
services for some of
the politicians who voted to subsidize the tobacco industry.
2. CHILDREN: You would see a society that claims to love children and promote their welfare above all
else. Then
you would watch as thousands of children are being sexually and psychologically abused by their elders.
You would
see millions of children locked away from the natural world in warehouses called ‘schools’. You would
then watch
these children suffer terrible diseases and develop personality disorders from being denied access to
natural light and
fresh air. Later you would watch as the sick children were medicated and turned into junior junkies to
control their
attention deficits and hyperactivity. You would take note of the tens of thousands of children that are
berated by their
parents while playing sports, the millions of children left at home alone to fend for themselves, the
millions of sickly
obese children stuffed with nothing but junk food and the hundreds of thousands of children who have
been locked up
in jails, prisons, and reform schools for behaving no differently than the drug and alcohol addicted adults
who locked
them up.
3. ANIMAL WELFARE: You would see hundreds of millions of dollars spent on pet food, pet
grooming, wildlife
programs on television, animal shelters, slick environmental publications, and zoos with ‘natural’
habitats. Then you
would see millions of chickens, pigs, and cows abused and tortured to make junk food to sicken our
children and pet
food for the few animals in our SICK SOCIETY that are coddled and treated better than our children.
You would
witness the horrors of rodeos, circuses, roadside zoos, and enslaved whales and porpoises. You would
see bulldozers
destroying the homes of millions of animals that would be forced into starvation or death as road-kill on
our highways.
You would watch as hundreds of thousands of baby chicks and rabbits died at the hands of their captors
during Easter.
The above represent just the tip of the iceberg of the hypocrisy that America represents to much of the
rest of the world.
In the minds of the huddled and suffering masses of the Third World our SICK SOCIETY represents,
land mines
blowing off the legs of children, bombs being dropped on peasant’s mud huts, millions of acres of
rainforests destroyed
by American owned timber companies, denial of family planning information, and exploitation of both
their people and
their resources so that Americans can waste precious fossil fuels and other resources in order to drive
197
bigger and more
inefficient vehicles.
Wake up America, before it is too late!!! Our worship of money, power, waste, and cancerous growth is
destroying
both our credibility as a caring and generous people but is leading us down the pathway to destruction
as a great nation.
THE BEGINNING OF THE LIE
Once upon a time before the year 1066 the people of England held Allodial title to their land. Not even
the king could
take the land for not paying a tithe. William the Conquer came in 1066 and stole the Kings Title and
took the land of
the people. From William I, 1066, to King John, 1199, England was in dire straits. It was bankrupt.
The King invoked the Law of Mortmain, the dead man's hand, so people couldn't pass their land on to
the church or
anyone else without the King's permission, (modern day probate?). Without Mortmain the King would
lose the land he
controlled. The Vatican didn't like that because the King owed a lot of pounds to the
Vatican.(WHY?)(1). King John
refused to accept The Vatican's representative, Stephen Langton, whom Pope Innocent III installed to
rule
England(religious or in fact?)(2) In 1208 England was placed under Papal interdict(?). Interdict means a
prohibition.)
King John was excommunicated and in trying to regain his stature he groveled before the Pope and
returned the title to
his kingdoms of England and Ireland to the Pope as vassals, and swore submission and loyalty to him.
King John
accepted Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury, and offered the Pope a vassal's bond of fealty and
homage. Two
months later, in July of 1213, King John was absolved of excommunication, at Winchester, by the
returned Archbishop
of Canterbury, Langton. On October 3, 1213, by treaty, King John ratified his surrender of his kingdoms
to the Pope, as
Vicar of Christ who claimed ownership of everything and everyone on earth as tradition.
Question 1. Where in the Bible did Jesus give any man this kind of power over all men and land? He
didn't. He did
not create a religion nor did he create the office of Pope.
Question 2. Can you have a third party break a contract between you and another person under duress..?
Don't those
of you who are forced into a contract reserve all your rights under modern UCC 1-207 and claim UCC
1-103?
The contract (treaty of 1213) was between two parties. Now the Barons of England would not put up
with being
slaves anymore so they took to the sword and made King John sign the Magna Charta. So doesn't this
act of the Barons
violate the principle of natural law, when they created the Magna Charta, as having no force and effect
upon a contract
between two parties? Well Pope Innocent III, the other contracting party thought so, for he declared the
Magna Charta
to be: ". . .unlawful and unjust as it is base and shameful. . . whereby the Apostolic See is brought into
contempt, the
198
Royal Prerogative diminished, the English outraged, and the whole enterprise of the Crusade greatly
imperiled."
Quoted from G.R.C. Davis: Magna Charta. Trustee of the British Museum. London. 1965.
The Pope, in order to introduce strife in England and Ireland that would help him, used Jesus teachings
to his
advantage that is verified in the Gospels by two of His Apostles. So St. Levy (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27),
alias Matthew,
cites Jesus at Matthew 10::34-36 and Luke 12:49, 51-3. Nothing reveals the antithesis of government
and religion more
clearly than these facts.
Question 3. What did the contract of 1213 A.D. create? A TRUST or CONTRACT. Only the two
parties, the King's
heirs and the Pope, can break the contract. For the Trust /Contract cannot be broken as long as there are
heirs to both
sides of the contract.
At this time in history we now know who controlled the Kings of England and the land of the world. For
Now we
have the Pope claiming the whole Western Hemisphere besides Europe. The Holy See of Antioch ruled
all the easterly
side and the Holy See of Alexandria ruled the western side, so there was a conflict. (3)
So, on with the story. The King's explorers had come to America to claim dominion over land by
deceiving and
murdering the natives, the American Indians. The King operated under the treaty of 1213 and everything
was going
along okay until the 1770's when the bunch of rogues called the "Founding Fathers" decided they
wanted the benefits
but not pay the taxes to the King. They, being lawyers, and professional educated men, didn't know they
were still
under the Pope's control? Their lies and fraud now would affect the American colonies and the people
who lived on the
land.
Those common people who fought in the American Revolution were unaware that the 1213 treaty still
ruled despite the
fact they THOUGHT the Magna Charta was a viable piece of work.(4) The Declaration of Rights in
1689 declared the
Rights of the British subjects in England. At the end of the English Declaration it stated at Section III "
...that should
any of the Rights just mentioned be in violation of the HOLY ALLIANCE (1213 Treaty), ...it is as if this
Declaration
was never written".
So we know that the English Declaration didn't fly, so what makes you think the 1774 Declaration of
Rights in this
British Colony would work. Weren't these people doing the same thing as the Barons did in 1215 A.D.
to King John? A
contract is a contract. Look at Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Can anyone
obligate a contract?
Were the "founding fathers" trying to obligate a contract between two parties that still have heirs living
today?
Question 4. How important is the "ultimate benefactor", the Pope, The HOLY SEE, in the scheme of
things? Move
199
through history till modern times and pull Public Law 88-244, which follows Public Law 88-243 - the
institution of the
law- merchants Uniform Commercial Code. Are you shocked that the Pope is listed in this Public Law?
Doesn't the United States have an ambassador in the Vatican? Why? Is it a government like all other
nations such as
France, Japan, Spain or Brazil? The Vatican runs the world, it controls the British Crown. Is it any
wonder they
separate man's Church and government? They don't talk about the Lord Almighty's Church
(government) do they.(5)
"Organized churches" are given special tax privileges because the Vatican dictates to the sixty United
States trustees
through the trust document, the U.S. Constitution created by the 1783 treaty between the King,
frontman for the
Vatican, and Adams, Hartly, Laurens, & Franklin who were operating for the King and not the people of
America.
Look at Article VI of the Constitution for the United States for your answer as stated in the "New
History of
America".(6)
You see we are still under the Pope who rules over all nations as he declared he did back in 1213. The
1783 Treaty did
say in the opening statement quoted exactly as it appears in olde English; "It having pleafed the Divine
Providence to
difpofe the hearts of the Moft Serene and Moft Porent Prince, George the Third, by the grace of God,
King of the Great
Britain, France and Ireland, Defender, of the Faith , Duke of Brunfwick and Laurenberg, Arch-Treafurer
and PRINCE
ELECTOR OF THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE, & C. AND OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, . . .."
(Emphasis added in caps).
Did you catch the last few words? This is from a King (man) who can supposedly make no claim over
the United States
of America because he was defeated? The King claims God gave him the almighty power to say that no
man can ever
own property because it, "goes against the tenets of his church, the Vatican/Holy Roman Empire,
because the King is
the "Elector of the Holy Roman Empire’"
What about the secret Treaty of Verona, made the 22nd of November, 1822, which shows the power of
the Pope and
the Vatican's interest in the US Republic.
Here is part of The Secret Treaty of Verona. "The undersigned specially authorized to make some
additions to the
treaty of the Holy Alliance, after having exchanged their respective credentials, have agreed as follows:
ARTICLE I. The high contracting powers being convinced that the system of representative government
is equally as
incompatible with the monarchial principles as the maxim of the sovereignty of the people with the
divine right, engage
mutually, in the most solemn manner to use all their efforts to put an end to the system of representative
governments,
in what ever country it may exist in Europe, and to prevent its being introduced in those countries where
it is not yet
200
known.
ARTICLE 2. As it cannot be doubted that the liberty of the press is the most powerful means used by
the pretended
supporters of the rights of nations to the detriment of those of princes, the high contracting parties
promise reciprocally
to adopt all proper measures to suppress it, not only in their own state but also in the rest of Europe.
ARTICLE 3. Convinced that the principles of religion contribute most powerfully to keep nations in the
state of passive
obedience which they owe to their princes, the high contracting parties declare it to be their intention to
sustain in their
respective states, those measures which the clergy may adopt with the aim of ameliorating their own
interests, so
intimately connected with the preservation of the authority of the princes; and the contracting powers
join in offering
their thanks to the Pope for what he has already done for them, and solicit his constant cooperation in
their views of
submitting the nations."
Do we have a false God before us and worship him and his church instead of the real Lord, Jesus and his
government.
The divine right of kings exists in Clinton and every Governor of the states in corporate Union. Well let
me go on
record and say that the Lord gave me the same right as the Pope claims was given to him. Am I not a
Steward upon the
land of the Lord as a mere sojourner, the same as the Pope? Are not you also a Steward?
Did the Lord make a covenant with Adam and Eve to subdue the earth and reign over the animals and to
populate the
earth? Doesn't that contract still exist? And doesn't it exist with you also? And we, the true believers in
that contract,
can we take all the nations (mans) laws in the world and dump them in the ocean to regain our rightful
place on this
earth under the Lord's Natural Law to thwart the contract between King John and the Pope that appears
to defeat the
original contract the Lord made with man?
Yes, let us go back to the original contract and destroy the Vatican's control over everybody. Before
1066 the Pope did
not claim all the land as the people claimed the land and didn't pay taxes on it to anybody. Didn't the
Lord say to the
people after coming out of Egypt, "why do you want a king when you have me and my contract?"
Which Lord do you
want to live under, a Pope, a King, President, Governors, Senators, Representatives, or a real Lord
called Jesus Christ.
"Christians," are ridiculed and put down because they read the Word of the Lord correctly and could
defeat even the
best the Pope has to throw at them.
The King James version of the Bible is just that. A version concocted by the King under the guidance of
the Pope so as
to hide the real truth. I was taught by the church I went to, which is government controlled as it has to
be by the treaty
of 1213 and reiterated in the 1783 Treaty between The Pope's Elector, King John and the First President
of the United
201
States, Sam Huntington and Charles Thompson, Secretary. I read the passage, when Jesus was on the
cross, from a very
old manuscript that said, "Forgive them NOT, for they know what they do." This is different than what
most people
believe he said, "Forgive them for they know not what they do." Bottom line is that when men write,
transcribe,
translate, update, and copy over thousands of years they always alter the interpretation, words and insert
their own
meanings. You can see this in just the 200 years that our country became separated from England, but
still remains a
colony under different compact and use of clever wording. But that is another whole subject that you do
not know
about.
Eminent domain and Allodial title:
Why and where did "eminent domain" rear its ugly head? Right after the King's government was formed
here in
America. Eminent domain replaced the Law of Mortmain of England and when government wanted
your land they
claimed eminent domain thereby destroying that to what people think they have allodial title. Allodial
title only existed
in America when the King granted the use of the land to the likes of William Penn, .........
But it could be taken at any time. Are you or were your great, great, great grandfathers ever free to hold
land that could
never be taken away? Ask some of today's farmers and see how many lost their farms to the government
that belonged
to their past family and I'll bet none of the land goes back to the 1789 era. Well it's a wonderful world to
live in the end
times, isn't it. Read Revelations to see where the false preachers come from. Who is the "Harlot" in
Revelations?
Does the Vatican come close with a mortal calling himself the "vicar" of Christ?
Here is the definition of vicar in Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language.
Vicar: "In a general sense, a person deputed or authorized to perform the functions of another; a
substitute in office."
The Pope PRETENDS to be vicar of Jesus Christ on earth.
Pretend; To hold out as a false appearance; to offer something feigned instead of that which is real; To
exhibit as a
cover for something hidden."
You bet your life the Pope has something to hide. He is no more powerful than You. The King is no
more powerful
than You. The American President and Governor's are no more powerful than You. You allow THEM
run your lives
...WHY.?
Thinkers, you cannot fight the Pope or the King on their contract even though you are affected by the
contract. You
must go elsewhere for relief. Remember the first contract in history, God with Adam and Eve? You had
better because
you were a part of it as an heir and it is your saving grace. Why do you think the "courts of common
law" are despised
and Government and States are taking action to stop them? See where the power lies when this
happens? Clinton, the
202
Governors, and Congress of the United States and the Legislatures of the several states are only
following orders and
delegate to the 60 U.S. Trustees, who always show up in bankruptcy generated mostly by IRS actions.
Isn't that a
starting point?
What do Trustees administer? A trust? The Constitution is a trust, correct? It was created by the 1783
Treaty, correct? It
is not the private man's trust contract, correct? Only those entering into the contract are UNDER the
constitution and
are bound by it, correct? Look up the definition of "under" in words and phrases and a good dictionary
such as
Webster's 1828 at Vol. II, 101. I, my dear readers, am not "under" some damn corporate trust
(constitution) drafted in
secrecy by the King and corporate lawyer esquires (you call them the "Founding Fathers") whom were
controlled by
the Treaty of 1213, wherein the Vatican still ruled over all. It was never "my constitution" and never will
be. The
Constitution does not apply to me nor will it ever.
However, some of the states' representatives in 1776 realized that the Constitution was a commercial
contract among
the Founding Fathers to protect their financial interests in the Americas and in Europe. The Articles of
the Bill of
Rights is designed to keep those United States citizens whom are bound by the Constitution (contract)
from
encroaching upon my natural Law Rights, (With this hint in mind you may discover where the IRS gets
its purported
power that makes you liable, because you claim to be UNDER the constitution, but they will never
admit it because
only a few know the real reason and they are not about to tell their agents. The same goes for any
license issued to you
by the corporate States). I hope you have read the Supreme Court cases of State and United States cited
in my previous
books that prove beyond any shadow of a doubt I am correct in my previous two sentences. Yet you
always fall back
into the trap by claiming citizenship of the United States AND THE STATES.
No! You are not a citizen of the corporate or organic State if you want to be free. You cannot claim it is
your
constitution and remain free. You cannot claim representatives in the legislatures and remain free. How
about your
estate? State and Estate come from the same contract.
Webster's 1828 Dictionary defines it;
"ESTA'TE, n. 1. In a general sense, fixedness; a condition; now generally written and pronounced state.
(6) The general
interest of business or government; hence a political body; a commonwealth; a republic.
But in this sense, we now use State." Get the picture? We are the ryots tenure holding the "estate" of the
King called
your estate. Belong to a body politic and you are a slave. In my previous books I told the people a
"republic" is a fraud,
for then you belong to the estate of the King which makes you a law-merchant holding as a trustee the
King's land that
203
he is holding in trust for the Vatican. The States are the "estate " of the Vatican/King cabal with the
money changers
along for the ride are a full blown consortium which includes the Congress/President/ Governors et al. I
don't want to
drive you crazy, since you might not comprehend all that is here. Once you know the truth and let go of
all you were
taught by the government and the preachers you don't become the drowning man grasping at the lies to
stay afloat.
Have you ever wondered why you were sinking while pleading case law and their constitution to protect
you?
Bye till next time,
The Informer
(1)(WHY?). Because the Pope claimed all lands as the vicar of Christ and the king owed money from
the Vatican that
was to be collected by the Church of England. The church reduced their parishioners to mere serfdom.
When they died
the church got the property and the King, in order to preserve what property he had instituted the law of
Mortmain.
This prevented the people from willing the land to the Pope. When the pope got wind of this he
excommunicated the
King. That's the explanation for the Why?
(2) This is a fact that is documented in the English documents of History at the Leeds Library.
(3)The conflict between each of the Holy Sees, one controlling the western front (America) and the
other controlling
the China side with the dividing line somewhere in Spain and France through Germany. The Pope is the
figurehead,
remember and the best way to explain it is Congress is Alexandria and the Senate is Antioch.
(4) (Why doesn't the Magna Charta hold more force and effect than a later contract between the king
and the Pope?
Because the Pope decreed it null and void as it would break the contract he had initiated with the King.
The Magna
Charta was a contract breaker by third parties and that was a no-no in any law. Besides the Pope owned
England and
how could the Barons take the land that the King pledged let alone all the surfs that the Pope still
controlled through the
church of England? He can't and so the Magna Charta was declared Void. Now the Pope, through the
front man, The
King, could create the other contracts called treaties and no one is the wiser. Remember, the Pope was
being controlled
by the creditor, The Rothschilds to whom the Pope was indebted.
(5) Why? It is clear as a bell. The "church" of GOD is 'Government of GOD and man created all these
religions and
made churches for them. They, man, cannot allow the Government of the Lord "Church upon this rock"
to get in the
way of the government of men, now can they?
(6) "New History of America", by The Informer
People you can read this for yourself in American Council of Christian Laymen: "How Red Is The
Federal Council of
Churches", Madison, Wisconsin, 1949. Now you may better understand James Montgomery's latest as
to why all the
204
declarations, Magna Charta, etc. have no effect. Read on to see why.
See: James Montgomery's - "British Colony III" on the Internet. To further prove what I say that the
declared rights
were also at the mercy of any previous charters or grants from the king of England you must read
section 25 of the
1776 North Carolina Constitution, Declaration of Rights which states;09"And provided further, that
nothing herein
contained shall affect the titles or possessions of individuals holding or claiming under the laws
heretofore in force, or
grants heretofore made by the late King George II, or his predecessors, or the late lords proprietors, or
any of them."
The Declaration of Independence
Visit our Declaration of Independence website
In Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands
which have
connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal
station to which the
Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires
that they should
declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to
secure these
rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed, --That
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to
alter or to abolish
it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in
such form, as
to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that
Governments
long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath
shewn that
mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the
forms to
which they are accustomed. 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. --Such has been the patient sufferance
of these
Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of
Government. The
history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in
direct object
the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a
candid world.
205
He has refuted his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended
in their
operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend
to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those
people would
relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to
tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the
depository of their
Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on
the rights of the
people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the
Legislative Powers,
incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in
the mean time
exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for
Naturalization
of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of
new
Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary
Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount an
payment of their
salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and
eat out their
substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and
unacknowledged by our
laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on
the Inhabitants
of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an
Arbitrary
government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for
introducing the
206
same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms
of our
Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in
all cases
whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death,
desolation, and
tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty ;amp& Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most
barbarous ages,
and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their
Country, to become
the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of
our frontiers, the
merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages,
sexes and
conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our
repeated Petitions
have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act
which may define a
Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time
of attempts by
their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the
circumstances of our
emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have
conjured them
by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our
connections and
correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must,
therefore, acquiesce in
the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies
in War, in
Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled,
appealing to the
Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the
good People of
these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be
Free and
Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political
connection
between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and
Independent
207
States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to
do all other
Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. --And for the support of this Declaration,
with a firm
reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our
Fortunes and our
sacred Honor.
--John Hancock
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George
Taylor, James
Wilson, George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis
Lightfoot Lee,
Carter Braxton
North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
The Bankruptcy of the United States
Gold and silver were such a powerful money during the founding of the
united states of America, that the founding fathers declared that only gold
or silver coins can be "money" in America.
Subject: .The Bankruptcy of The United States
United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303
THIS IS IMPORTANT!!!!
Speaker-Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House:
"Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11.. Members of Congress are
official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any Bankrupt
entity in world history, the U.S. Government. We are setting forth
hopefully, a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a
208
coroner's report that will lead to our demise.
It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has
been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1,
Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and
insolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress m session June 5, 1933 - Joint
Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause
dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official
capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and
Departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal
Government exists today in name only.
The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International
Bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund. All United States Offices, Officials, and Departments are now
operating within a de facto status in name only under Emergency War Powers.
With the Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved, the
receivers of the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government for the
United States. This new form of government is known as a Democracy, being an
established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America. This
act was instituted and established by transferring and/or placing the Office
of the Secretary of Treasury to that of the Governor of the International
Monetary Fund. Public Law 94-564, page 8, Section H.R. 13955 reads in part:
"The U.S. Secretary of Treasury receives no compensation for representing
the United States."
Gold and silver were such a powerful money during the founding of the
united states of America, that the founding fathers declared that only gold
or silver coins can be "money" in America. Since gold and silver coinage
were heavy and inconvenient for a lot of transactions, they were stored in
banks and a claim check was issued as a money substitute. People traded
their coupons as money, or "currency." Currency is not money, but a money
substitute. Redeemable currency must promise to pay a dollar equivalent in
gold or silver money. Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) make no such promises,
and are not "money." A Federal Reserve Note is a debt obligation of the
federal United States government, not "money?' The federal United States
government and the U.S. Congress were not and have never been authorized by
the Constitution for the united states of America to issue currency of any
kind, but only lawful money, -gold and silver coin.
It is essential that we comprehend the distinction between real money and
paper money substitute. One cannot get rich by accumulating money
substitutes, one can only get deeper into debt. We the People no longer have
any "money." Most Americans have not been paid any "money" for a very long
time, perhaps not in their entire life. Now do you comprehend why you feel
broke? Now, do you understand why you are "bankrupt," along with the rest of
the country?
Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are unsigned checks written on a closed
account. FRNs are an inflatable paper system designed to create debt through
inflation (devaluation of currency). when ever there is an increase of the
supply of a money substitute in the economy without a corresponding increase
in the gold and silver backing, inflation occurs.
Inflation is an invisible form of taxation that irresponsible governments
inflict on their citizens. The Federal Reserve Bank who controls the supply
209
and movement of FRNs has everybody fooled. They have access to an unlimited
supply of FRNs, paying only for the printing costs of what they need. FRNs
are nothing more than promissory notes for U.S. Treasury securities
(T-Bills) - a promise to pay the debt to the Federal Reserve Bank.
There is a fundamental difference between "paying" and "discharging" a
debt. To pay a debt, you must pay with value or substance (i.e. gold,
silver, barter or a commodity). With FRNs, you can only discharge a debt.
You cannot pay a debt with a debt currency system. You cannot service a debt
with a currency that has no backing in value or substance. No contract in
Common law is valid unless it involves an exchange of "good & valuable
consideration." Un-payable debt transfers power and control to the sovereign
power structure that has no interest in money, law, equity or justice
because they have so much wealth already.
Their lust is for power and control. Since the inception of central
banking, they have controlled the fates of nations.
The Federal Reserve System is based on the Canon law and the principles of
sovereignty protected in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In fact,
the international bankers used a "Canon Law Trust" as their model, adding
stock and naming it a "Joint Stock Trust." The U.S. Congress had passed a
law making it illegal for any legal "person" to duplicate a "Joint Stock
Trust" in 1873. The Federal Reserve Act was legislated post-facto (to 1870),
although post-facto laws are strictly forbidden by the Constitution. [1:9:3]
The Federal Reserve System is a sovereign power structure separate and
distinct from the federal United States government. The Federal Reserve is a
maritime lender, and/or maritime insurance underwriter to the federal United
States operating exclusively under Admiralty/Maritime law. The lender or
underwriter bears the risks, and the Maritime law compelling specific
performance in paying the interest, or premiums are the same.
Assets of the debtor can also be hypothecated (to pledge something as a
security without taking possession of it.) as security by the lender or
underwriter. The Federal Reserve Act stipulated that the interest on the
debt was to be paid in gold. There was no stipulation in the Federal Reserve
Act for ever paying the principle.
Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free
and clear of any liens or mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913)
"Hypothecated" all property within the federal United States to the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve, -in which the Trustees (stockholders) held
legal title. The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a
"beneficiary" of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the
federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties,
assets and labor of their "subjects," the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to
the Federal Reserve System.
In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend the federal United
States corporation all the credit "money substitute" it needed. Like any
other debtor, the federal United States government had to assign collateral
and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan. Since the
federal United States didn't have any assets, they assigned the private
property of their "economic slaves", the U.S. citizens as collateral against
the un-payable federal debt. They also pledged the unincorporated federal
territories, national parks forests, birth certificates, and nonprofit
210
organizations, as collateral against the federal debt. All has already been
transferred as payment to the international bankers.
Unwittingly, America has returned to its pre-American Revolution, feudal
roots whereby all land is held by a sovereign and the common people had no
rights to hold allodial title to property. Once again, We the People are the
tenants and sharecroppers renting our own property from a Sovereign in the
guise of the Federal Reserve Bank. We the people have exchanged one master
for another.
This has been going on for over eighty years without the "informed
knowledge" of the American people, without a voice protesting loud enough.
Now it's easy to grasp why America is fundamentally bankrupt.
Why don't more people own their properties outright?
Why are 90% of Americans mortgaged to the hilt and have little or no assets
after all debts and liabilities have been paid? Why does it feel like you
are working harder and harder and getting less and less?
We are reaping what has been sown, and the results of our harvest is a
painful bankruptcy, and a foreclosure on American property, precious
liberties, and a way of life. Few of our elected representatives in
Washington, D.C. have dared to tell the truth. The federal United States is
bankrupt. Our children will inherit this un-payable debt, and the tyranny to
enforce paying it.
America has become completely bankrupt in world leadership, financial
credit and its reputation for courage, vision and human rights. This is an
undeclared economic war, bankruptcy, and economic slavery of the most
corrupt order! Wake up America! Take back
your Country."
[ IS IT ANY WONDER THAT THE "ELITE" ARE OUT TO DESTROY REP TRAFICANT? He
is hitting the Socialist CFR/TC and the Communist UN where it hurts! LMsr. ]
Image: United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303
Added by: Chester L McWhorter Sr: Forming the Federal Reserve System are the
primary Federal Reserve "Banks" of: Boston, New York, Philadelphia,
Cleveland, Richmond, Atlanta, Chicago, St Louis, Minneapolis, Kansas City,
Dallas, and San Francisco. These banks are not real banks..you cannot cash a
check there, open an account, etc. These "banks" are also holding companies
of smaller banks.
In all of this discussion about income tax, we should be ever mindful of the
fact that CONGRESS is the key. CONGRESS votes to spend the money. Congress
gives the IRS its power. Congress gives the IRS its OWN budget. Congress is
elected by the people. The IRS is A DECOY.
>>>>Disclaimer: This document may be used as you will except:
If you change anything in the text, remove my name and other Ident. You may
use it without my identification also if you wish...I only ask that people
read it and think...think...think. Sources/Ref's if not in the text will be
found on the last page of Doc 000.0.0.1 and 000.0.6. CLMsr.<<<<
We have a Constitution and our Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) that
makes us free. Right? Then visit:
http://www.trimonline.org http://www.getusout.org
http://www.thenewamerican.com http://www.givemeliberty.org
http://www.jbs.org Http://wwwgetawarrant.com
Then take a look at these sites: http://www.dixierising.com
211
http://www.dixienet.org http://www.palmetto.org
http://www.southerncaucus.org http://www.spofga.org
http://www.southern-style.com http://www.nca.mybravenet.com
NOTE # 1: This is the FIRST doc in a string of about 37 regarding the
Income Tax, How it was illegally forced upon us, the collusion of various
nation banks, including The Bank of England, the Banks of Europe, the Banks
of the USA that make up the Non-Government organization known as the Fed and
the bankers themselves dedicated to making this a Socialist Nation. As David
Rockefeller reportedly said in 1973 when he and others formed the Trilateral
Commission, "We will have this a Socialist Nation by the end of the year
2000." Well, with the help of our past Communist President, he damned well
nearly did it. If Comrade Gore had been elected, it would be now! The last
doc in this series is a plan that was presented to President Bush when he
visited Florida recently. It was put directly into his hands. He has not
acted upon it. We The People must initiate a campaign of letters, faxes,
e-mails, and phone calls to him and others in our otherwise corrupt
government letting them know of our displeasure. For God and Country, Chet.
NOTE # 2: [ Should you wish to be removed from my mailing list, please
send a message with the word remove in the subject line. If you got this
from a mail list, such as xxxxxx@xxxxxgroups.com or something like that,
then it is up to the moderator or owner of the list to remove my access
based upon complaints of my material, abuse, or removal of your access if
you request it. ] Should you wish a copy of a numbered message
(this is the First one) that you may have missed, please e-mail me off net
for a copy of it and I will be very happy to provide it. Chet.
You may forward this to every member of Congress by using a Mail Blaster
application available on the Internet as follows:
Step 1. Access your web browser. Step 2. Type in the search block:
http://www.mailblasterdot.com
Step 3. Click on Send Batch E-Mail which is on the left end of the screen.
Step 4. Type in your E-mail Address. Step 5. Click on Subject: Type in
the subject of your document.
Step 6. Click on Message: Now here you can type in your message or you can
paste a previously copied file here. You can also edit your message after
you finish with the message and before sending it.
Step 7. Then click on select a file. Here you may click on:
demhouse.txt (Socialist Democrat House Members) or,
democsen.txt (Socialist Democrats Senate Members) or,
newsorg.txt (Many of the "anchor" news folks have their email address here
for you to use) or,
rephouse.txt (Republican House of Representatives Members) or,
repubsen.txt (Republican Senate Members) or,
senators.txt (All Senators).
Step 8. After selecting the group to receive your message then click on
send batch. It will go to everyone listed in the batch.
Remember: Nothing beats a letter AND a phone call.
AS/Chester L McWhorter Sr, c/o 504 N. Brighton Rd, Lecanto, Occupied Florida.
34461. Ph: 352-344-9073. Fax: Same. E-mail: robertthebruce@naturecoast.net
01 of 37 100.0.0.0 End
Quote: We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we [ the CFR ]
212
need is the right major crisis and the nation[s] will accept the New World
Order. End Quote. David Rockefeller: Founder and Honorary Chairman,
Council of the Americas; Chairman, Americas Society; Founder, Forum of the
Americas; Chairman, Emeritus, Council on Foreign Relations [CFR]; Founder
and Honorary Chairman, Trilateral Commission [TC]; Chairman, The
Bilderbergs. [ How does the 11 Sept 2001 attack upon our country figure
into this?
The Bankruptcy of the United States is a 38 part document.
THE SECRET OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm
IT'S TIME TO CIRCLE THE WAGONS
The Federal Reserve manipulates U.S. currency, interest rates, and inflation for the advantage of its
owners. Since
1998, NORFED has provided The Liberty Dollar - an inflation proof currency owned by the people, not
the Federal
Reserve.
The Short Road To Chaos And Destruction
An Expose of the Federal Reserve Banking System
http://www.worldnewsstand.net/today/articles/chaos.htm
The End of Ordinary Money, Part I
http://www.aci.net/kalliste/money1.htm
The End of Ordinary Money, Part II:
http://www.aci.net/kalliste/money2.htm
President Kennedy, the Federal Reserve and Executive Order 11110
The Federal Reserve Is A PRIVATELY OWNED Corporation
"The American Dream" Fire 'em all!
Mathematic PROOF: Federal Reserve CAUSED Great Depression
Part 1: Mathematic PROOF the Federal Reserve CAUSED the Great Depression.
Part 2: Congressman Louis T. McFadden's famous 1932 Congressional Address.
Nature and iniquitous history of the private international banks deceitfully
called The Federal Reserve System. A blueprint for irreversible multiplication
of debt in proportion to commerce, until world-wide economic collapse under
insoluble debt. Tens of thousands of visitors voted this page a Starting Point
Hotsite award, November 7, 1998. Hopefully, mathematic proof of a singular
prescription for perfected economy will ultimately serve as the impetus for
world-wide establishment of mathematically perfected economy.
http://www.perfecteconomy.com/principal---federal-reserve-system.html
Who Owns The Federal Reserve?
There has been much speculation about who owns the Federal Reserve Corporation.
It has been one of the great secrets of the century, because the Federal Reserve
Act of 1913 provided that the names of the owner banks be kept secret.
However, R. E. McMaster publisher of the newsletter The Reaper, asked his Swiss
banking contacts which banks hold the controlling stock in the Federal Reserve
Corporation. The Federal System is by the way a private Corporation # 62 domiciled
in Puerto Rico.
The answer to who owns the Fed and by proxy the entire USA:
Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin
Lazard Brothers Bank of Paris
Israel Moses Sieff Banks of Italy
Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam
213
Lehman Brothers Bank of New York
Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York
Chase Manhattan Bank of New York
Goldman Sachs Bank of New York.
In The Secrets Of The Federal Reserve, Eustace Mullins indicates that, because the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York sets interest rates and controls the daily supply
and price of currency throughout the U.S., the owners of that bank are the real
directors of the entire system. Mullins states:
"The shareholders of these banks which own the stock of the Federal Reserve
Bank of New York are the people who have controlled our political and economic
destinies since 1914.
They are the Rothschilds,
Lazard Freres (Eugene Mayer),
Israel Sieff,
Kuhn Loeb Company,
Warburg Company,
Lehman Brothers,
Goldman Sachs,
the Rockefeller family, and the
J.P. Morgan interests."
STRANGER THAN FICTION
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is
accepted as
self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860
OPENING STATEMENT
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates taught his students that the
pursuit of truth
can only begin once they start to question and analyze every belief that they ever held dear. If a certain
belief passes the
tests of evidence, deduction, and logic, it should be kept. If it doesn't, the belief should not only be
discarded, but the
thinker must also then question why he was led to believe the erroneous information in the first place.
Not surprisingly,
this type of teaching didn't sit well with the ruling elite of Greece. Many political leaders throughout
history have
always sought to mislead the thinking of the masses. Socrates was tried for "subversion" and for
"corrupting the youth".
He was then forced to take his own life by drinking poison. It's never easy being an independent thinker!
Today, our
ruling government/media complex doesn't kill people for pursuing the truth about the world (at least not
yet!) They
simply label them as "extremists" or "paranoid", destroying careers and reputations in the process. For
many, that's a
fate even worse than drinking poison hemlock!
Every news story you are about to review in this comprehensive research paper is true and easily
verifiable. This
investigation represents 10 months of careful study, research, analysis, source verification and logical
deduction. Every
event and quote presented here is 100% accurate. There are over 190 detailed footnotes which I
214
encourage, no, urge,
readers to explore and verify for themselves. The Internet version of this paper will allow users to obtain
instant
verification for each and every footnote by clicking on the footnotes/links. Others can obtain easy
verification by
entering the key search words (provided at the end of the paper) into the Yahoo or Google.com search
engines. Due to
the fact that well organized efforts are under way to suppress these facts, some of these news links are
mysteriously
disappearing even as we speak. Fortunately, this information has all been transcribed by many web users
and is has
therefore been preserved from the censors. These footnote searches will take you directly to the news
sites of many
well known established media organizations throughout the world as well as opening up doors to a
world of knowledge
and information that has been concealed from you. With just a little common sense and a few clicks of a
mouse,
Google and Yahoo now enable anyone with an ounce of curiosity to become a Sherlock Holmes.
This is no opinion piece. Rather it is a collection of buried, but undeniable facts, events, and quotes
which, when
assembled in one place, will state their own conclusions. In putting together this research in a logical and
sequential
format, great care was taken to confirm and double confirm every piece of information. Any and all
questionable data
which could not be independently verified to this author’s satisfaction was discarded.
Taken individually, each story, quote and event may not amount to a full case. But when taken
collectively, this
mountain of facts should hammer home the truth to even the most skeptical reader. There are of course
those who have
fallen under the hypnotic spell of the TV talking-heads and "experts" whom they worship as authority
figures.
Unaccustomed to thinking for themselves, no amount of truth can sway them from their preconceived
prejudices. They
will even deny that which they see with their own eyes. They are victims of a psychological affliction
known as "the
lemming effect". Lemmings are small rodents who have been known to follow each other as they charge
to their deaths
into raging rivers or off of cliffs. Lemminghood is an innate psychological phenomenon, present in most
mammals and
observable in common people as well the most sophisticated and educated elites. Lemminghood is not
an intellectual
phenomenon - it is psychological. As such, no socio-economic class is immune to its strangulating effect.
A grantseeking
university scientist can be a lemming just as much as a fashion obsessed teen-age girl. One blindly
follows the
latest trendy theory while the other blindly follows the latest trendy clothing style. What's the difference?
Neither can
resist the force of nature.
The power to fit in with one's social peers can be irresistible. To a human lemming, the logic behind an
opinion doesn't
215
count as much as the power and popularity behind an opinion. Man, like lemming, behaves collectively.
And it could
be no other way. Naturally, the individual must be equipped with this trait. Otherwise, the smallest steps
toward
civilization could never have been made. Lemminghood is a survival trait, an inborn instinct in the
majority of people.
However, as with all natural phenomena, this tendency can be manipulated and used for harmful
purposes.
It is this lemming effect which enables entire segments of a society to lose their sense of judgment all at
the same time.
This research paper will likely be wasted on many lemmings. For lemmings, denial is a basic
psychological defense
mechanism used to not only shield themselves from unpleasant realities, but also to reassure themselves
that they will
still fit within the acceptable range of opinion held by their peer group. Lemmings are absolutely terrified
at the thought
of being labeled as an "extremist" or a "conspiracy theorist". At all costs, their beliefs must always be on
the "right"
side of the issue and conform within the boundaries of their lemming peers. Lemmings simply cannot
bear the burden
of responsibility, or the discomfort, which comes with thinking independently. They'll resist any efforts to
change their
misguided beliefs with all their mental energy. We can try to open their closed minds and free them from
their selfimposed
blindness, but it’s not easy fighting the force of human nature. The chains of ideological conformity have
too
strong of a grip, and breaking them is a difficult task. With the limited resources at our disposal, it is
next to impossible
to compete with the media lemming-masters. Nevertheless, some of us must make the meager attempt,
and thus lay the
foundation upon which the truth might one day rise again.
There are those among us who do have the courage and intellectual capacity to break free of the
shackles of
lemminghood and accept the truth when it is presented in a clear and logical sequence. To those open
minded and
independent thinkers I wish to state clearly and unequivocally. I intend to set forth in this paper an
overwhelming body
of evidence which should forever destroy the notion that a Saudi Arabian caveman and his band of halftrained,
nerdy
Arab flight school attendees, orchestrated the most sophisticated terror operation in world history. The
idea is utterly
laughable. And yet, due to the blithering barrage of bullshit dished out by the government/media
complex, "patriotic"
Americans have accepted this ridiculous fairy tale with a religious conviction. As a public service to my
fellow
Americans, I have published the results of my research in the hopes of liberating as many people as I can
from the
oppressive yoke of media brainwashing and state sponsored lies. Do you have what it takes to break
free? If so, read
on!
216
LEFT: SOCRATES TAKES THE POSION CUP
RIGHT: ARE YOU A THINKER..OR A LEMMING ?
THE DANCING ISRAELIS
Like most Americans, I was gripped by senses of profound shock, horror, revulsion, sadness, and rage as
I watched the
horror of September 11, 2001 unfolding live on my television screen. Watching the mass murder of
thousands of
innocent people live on television was the most upsetting experience of my life. How could any person
of sound moral
character not be enraged at witnessing this horrific act of barbarism? To read about some faraway, longago
genocide
in a newspaper or a book is distressing enough. But to actually witness the mass murders of what was,
at first, believed
to have been tens of thousands of innocent people is truly heart stopping and traumatic. I barely slept for
two nights
afterwards and suffered nightmares. Polling data would later reveal that 65% of Americans actually shed
tears on 9-
11.1
But not all of the eye-witnesses to the 9-11 slaughter were so saddened. On September 11, five Israeli
army veterans
were arrested by the FBI after several witnesses saw them "dancing", "high-fiving", and "celebrating" as
they took
pictures of the World Trade Center disaster from across the river in New Jersey. Steven Gordon was the
lawyer who
volunteered to represent the five Israelis. He was asked by a Hebrew newspaper why the five men were
being detained
by the FBI. Here’s what Gordon told Yediot America:
"On the day of the disaster, three of the five boys went up on the roof of the building where the
company office is
located," said Gordon. "I'm not sure if they saw the twin towers collapse, but, in any event, they
photographed the ruins
right afterwards. One of the neighbors who saw them called the police and claimed they were posing,
dancing and
laughing, against the background of the burning towers….
"Anyhow, the three left the roof, took an Urban truck, and drove to a parking lot, located about a fiveminute
drive
from the offices. They parked, stood on the roof of the truck to get a better view of the destroyed
towers and took
photographs. A woman who was in the building above the lot testified that she saw them smiling and
exchanging highfives.
She and another neighbor called the police and reported on Middle-Eastern looking people dancing on
the truck.
They copied and reported the license plates. 2
When the photos were developed, they revealed that the dancing Israelis were smiling in the foreground
of the New
York massacre. 3 According to ABC’s 20/20 attempted whitewash of the incident, in addition to their
outrageous and
highly suspicious behavior, the five also had in their possession the following items; box-cutters,
European passports,
and $4700 cash hidden in a sock. 4 Why were these Israeli agents so happy about the horrible massacre
217
that was
unfolding right before their very eyes? What evil spirit could possess people who are supposed to be
America's "allies",
and who receive billions of dollars in financial and military aid from US taxpayers each year , to publicly
rejoice as
innocent people (including many American jews) were burning to death and jumping out of 110 story
buildings?
Could it be that these happy Israeli army veterans were in some way linked to this monstrous attack?
That’s what
officials close to the investigation initially told The Bergen Record newspaper of New Jersey. 5
As incredible, as ridiculous, and as "paranoid" as that belief may appear to you at this point, the fact is
that certain
elements within the Israeli government, and Zionist movement in general, have a long history of
attacking the USA and
framing Arabs in order to gain support from the US. Before we begin to piece together what really
transpired on 9-11,
it is absolutely critical that we first review some historical precedents regarding Israel's and International
Zionism's
treacherous history of manipulating America (and other nations) for their own selfish purposes. Without
a basic
understanding of this history, it would be impossible to understand the truth as it is today. So put aside
your
preconceived notions, your psychological defense mechanisms, and your prejudices, and step into my
time machine
for a journey down the memory hole.
LEFT: HORRIFIED AMERICANS WITNESS THE WTC ATTACKS.
RIGHT: ISRAELIS ARRESTED IN THIS VAN CELEBRATE!
ZIONISM AND WORLD WAR I
In the latter part of the 1800's, there arose in Europe a political movement known as "Zionism". Zionism
in particular
referred to the effort among certain jews to establish a jewish nation in the land of Palestine. Today, the
term Zionism
is more commonly applied to those jews who want to expand the borders of what was already
established, at the
expense of the Palestinians who once owned the land. In a more general sense, the term "Zionist" is also
used to
describe a certain element within the jewish community (not all of them!), who believe in Jewish
Supremacy, thus
putting their own interests ahead of those of the nation in which they reside. It is a mistake to assume
that all jews are
supporters of the "Zionist Mafia" or Jewish Supremacy. In fact, some of the strongest condemnations of
Zionism and
Jewish Supremacy comes from jews themselves! There exists an enormous collection of hard-hitting
anti-Zionist
writings compiled by such notable jewish authors, historians, and journalists as John Sack, 6 Alfred
Lilienthal, 7 Noam
Chomsky, 8 Israel Shahak, 9, Benjamin Freedman, 10 and Victor Ostrovsky 11 just to name a few. There
is even a
jewish religious group called "Neturei Karta, Jews United Against Zionism." 12 For their brave efforts,
these men have
218
had to tolerate vicious abuse from Zionist smear groups like the Anti Defamation League (ADL) - an
organization
which actually specializes in defamation!. So let us put to rest now and forever the slanderous lie, and
strategic Zionist
propaganda ploy, that labels anyone who dares to call attention to the dangers of the Zionist Mafia is an
"anti-semite", a
"hatemonger", or a "skin-head".
Now the Zionists of the late 1800’s faced one small problem with their bold takeover scheme of Arab
Palestine.
Palestine was under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Turkish Empire and the Arabs certainly weren't
about to just give
away prime real estate in Palestine to the Zionists of Europe. There were very few jews even living in
Palestine and the
jews had not controlled Palestine since the days of the Roman Empire. This destroys the commonly
believed myth that
the Arabs and the jews "have been fighting over that land for centuries". The handful of Arab jews who
lived in
Palestine got along well with their Muslim hosts and never expressed any desire whatsoever to
overthrow the Ottoman
rulers and set up a nation called Israel. The movement to strip Palestine away from the Ottoman Empire
came strictly
from European Zionists who had become very influential within several European nations.
As fate (or perhaps design) would have it, a great opportunity would soon present itself to the Zionist
Mafia. There
came in 1914 "The Great War" pitting the three powers of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman
Turkish
Empire against the three powers of England, France, and Russia. In the interests of staying on the
subject of 9-11 and
today's "War on Terrorism", we won't get into all of the underlying causes or the historical flow of
World War I. What we need to understand is that the Zionists played an important role in dragging the
USA into that bloody European war
- a war in which the US had no vital interests at stake whatsoever.
Here was the situation. By 1916, the Germans, Austrians, and Ottoman Turks had seemingly won the
war. Russia was
in turmoil and about to be swallowed up by communist revolution. France had suffered horrible losses,
and Britain was
under a German U-boat blockade. Germany made an offer to Britain to end the war under conditions
favorable to
Britain. But the British, and the international Zionists, had one more card to play!
The British government and the Zionist leaders struck a dirty deal. The Zionists were led by Chaim
Weizmann, the man
who one day become the first President of the State of Israel. The idea was for the Zionists to use their
influence to drag
the mighty USA into the war on Britain's side, so that Germany and it's Ottoman allies could be crushed.
In exchange
for helping to bring the USA into the war, the British would reward the Zionists by taking over Palestine
from the
conquered Ottomans after the war was over. The British had originally wanted to give the Zionists a
jewish homeland
in an African territory. But the Zionists were fixated on claiming Palestine as their land. Once under
219
British control, the
jews of Europe would be allowed to immigrate to Palestine in great numbers.
Zionists powerbrokers such as Bernard Baruch, Louis Brandeis, Paul Warburg, Jacob Schiff, and many
others
immediately went to work to put the screws to President Woodrow Wilson. The Zionist influenced
press, quickly
transformed the German Kaiser and his people into bloodthirsty "Huns", determined to destroy
civilization. In 1916,
the US, with the help of the Lusitania "incident", entered the war on Britain's side under the ridiculous
pretext of
"making the world safe for democracy".
Meanwhile in Germany - where Zionists also wielded tremendous influence in the press and industryenthusiasm
for
the war was suddenly watered down by Zionist run newspapers. Wartime labor-strikes in German
weapons factories
were organized by Zionist and Marxist union leaders. With the German branch of the International
Zionist Mafia
undermining Germany from within, and the English and American branches of the Zionist mafia pushing
America to
join the war, it wasn't long before the German, Austrian, and Ottoman Empires were defeated and their
maps rewritten
by the victorious powers at the infamous Treaty of Versailles in 1918. In addition to the numerous
Zionist bankers who
were influencing Versailles, the Zionists also had their own delegation which was headed by Chaim
Weizmann.
Great Britain issued the Balfour Declaration in November 1917, the same month that Germany
surrendered. But it had
actually been prepared 20 months earlier in March 1916 with Weizmann's influence. 13 The Declaration
allowed mass
jewish immigration to conquered Palestine while promising to preserve Arab rights. The Arabs living in
Palestine
weren't buying these promises. They protested, but there was nothing that they could do to stop the
coming wave of
jewish immigration. This was the first step in creating what was to later become the state of Israel 20
years later.
Years after the war, an American Zionist millionaire named Benjamin Freedman broke ranks with his
fellow Zionists
and turned against them. Freedman was the principal owner of the Woodbury Soap Company and was
one of the many
Zionists present at the Treaty of Versailles. Freedman was very well connected and had enjoyed access
to several US
presidents. Freedman grew disgusted with the criminal behavior of the Zionist mafia and dedicated much
of his life and
fortune to exposing the truth about both World Wars and the Zionist grip on America. According to
Freedman, Wilson
had been blackmailed by Zionists with the threat of a public disclosure of an old extramarital affair
Wilson had when
he was president of Princeton University. 14 Freedman's voluminous (and buried) writings and books on
this subject
are essential reading. One leader of the jewish Anti Defamation League - Arnold Forster- once described
220
Freedman as a
"self-hating jew." 15
We may debate as to exactly what extent this Zionist-British dirty deal was responsible for dragging the
sons of
America off to die in a European bloodbath. Some, such as Freedman, believe it was the only reason that
the US
entered the war. Others, such as this writer, believe it was a primary contributing factor. But let us at this
point agree on
this one irrefutable point: the Zionists had no aversion to seeing Americans die for their own selfish
interests. Even the
Encyclopedia Britannica and Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia (look under "Balfour Declaration")
confirm this little
known fact of World War I. Here's the excerpt from Microsoft Encarta:
THE BALFOUR DECLARATION. The Balfour Declaration was a letter prepared in March 1916 and
issued in
November 1917, during World War I, by the British statesman Arthur James Balfour, then foreign
secretary....
Specifically, the letter expressed the British government's approval of Zionism with "the establishment in
Palestine of a
national home for the Jewish people." The letter committed the British government to making the "best
endeavors to
facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done to
prejudice the rights of
existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." The immediate purpose was to win for the Allied cause in
World War I
the support of Jews in the warring nations and in the United States. As a result of the Balfour
Declaration, Israel was
established as an independent state in 1948 in the mandated area. 16 It's also worth mentioning at this
point that when
the British dismantled the Ottoman Empire after World War I, they created many smaller nations. The oil
rich, puppet
kingdom of Kuwait was formed by slicing off the southern coastal tip of what we now know as the
nation of Iraq. As a
result of this arbitrary redrawing of the Ottoman map, a bitter conflict was created between Iraq and
Kuwait. Iraq has
always considered Kuwait as its true southern province. This is what ultimately led to Iraq's invasion of
Kuwait in 1991
and the Gulf War.
ZIONISM AND WORLD WAR II
Let us fast forward our time machine to the early 1930's. Again, there is no need for a detailed analysis
and debate of
the causes and major events of World War II. The purpose here is to again illustrate yet another case of
selfish Zionist
agitation for American entry into a war.
The German people were bitterly resentful of not only the Zionist role in bringing about their defeat in
World War I,
but also over the brutal monetary reparations which had been imposed upon them by certain Zionist
bankers who
helped craft the brutal Treaty of Versailles after the war. Stripped of formerly German territory, and with
the German
221
economy in ruins, the people of Germany elected Adolf Hitler as their Chancellor leader. Hitler and the
Nazi party soon
seized control of the German media, banks, and universities away from the influential Zionists who
reigned supreme in
those institutions.
Almost immediately, Zionists all over the world began to agitate for action against Germany. Boycotts of
German
imports were imposed and calls for the UK and USA to take immediate action against Germany began
to emanate from
Zionist circles. On March 24, 1933, The Daily Express of England carried the bold headline; "Judea
Declares War on
Germany. Jews of All the World Unite in Action." 17 The front page story revealed that the Zionists had
announced a
concerted worldwide effort to isolate Germany and turn other nations against her.
The following year, Zionist political leader Vladimir Jabotinksy wrote:
"The fight against Germany has now been waged for months by every Jewish community, on every
continent...We
shall start a spiritual and material war of the world against Germany. Our Jewish interests call for the
complete
destruction of Germany." 18
A few years later, Lord Beaverbrook, a British newspaper magnate issued this warning about the Zionist
influence over
the British press. Beaverbrook warned:
"There are 20,000 German Jews who have come here to England. They all work against an agreement
with Germany.
The Jews have got a big position in the press here. Their political influence is driving us into the
direction of war." 19
In 1939, Germany and Poland went to war over disputed territory that was taken away from Germany
by the Versailles
Treaty of 1918. Under the phony pretext of protecting Poland, Great Britain and France immediately
declared war on
Germany. Beaverbrook’s prediction was realized.
In the United States, the Zionist Mafia again went to work on a US president. The names of the players
had changed
but the game was still the same. It was Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s turn to deliver the US into another
European war.
Patriotic Americans such as famed aviator Charles Lindbergh saw this and tried to warn the American
people that
Zionist media influence was intending to drive us into another World War. Said Lindbergh:
"I am not attacking the Jewish people. But I am saying that the leaders of both the British and the
Jewish races, for
reasons which are as understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons
which are not
American, wish to involve us in the war." 20
Because of strong public anti-war sentiment, FDR and his Zionist allies had a hard time dragging the US
into the
European war. Then another "incident" came along at Pearl Harbor in 1941. Japan and Germany were
bound to a
mutual defense agreement, which meant that war with Japan would automatically mean war with
Germany. FDR
222
embargoed Japan’s oil supply in the hopes of forcing Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. Overwhelming
evidence from
government documents clearly shows that FDR had advance knowledge of the Japanese attack and
allowed it to happen
so that he could drag the US into World War II. 21
As was the case in WW I, US entry the war meant another defeat of Germany. Hours before committing
suicide on
April 30, 1945, Adolf Hitler dictated his last will and political testament. In it he placed responsibility for
WW II on the
Zionist Mafia - or, as he called it - "International Jewry and its henchmen". It's no surprise that Hitler
would make such
a claim. However, his final accusation of the Zionists does parallel the statements made by Jabotinsky,
Lindbergh,
Beaverbrook, Joe Kennedy, and many others. In the final writing of his life, Hitler wrote:
"It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted war in 1939. It was wanted and provoked solely
by international
statesmen either of Jewish Origin or working for Jewish interests... Nor had I ever wished that after the
appalling first
World War, there would ever be a second against either England or America." 22
Regardless of your view of World War II and whether or not the USA belonged in the fight, the essential
point which
cannot be refuted is again this: years before World War II had even started, the Zionists had yet again
demonstrated
that they had no aversion to sending Americans to die for their own interests.
GREAT BRITAIN'S TURN TO BE BETRAYED
A few years after the end of World War II, the Zionist plan to establish the nation of Israel in Palestine
was finally
realized. But not before the British protectors of Palestine were chased out by acts of terror carried out
by ungrateful
Zionist terrorists. It was the British who had taken Palestine away from Arab control and allowed the
jews of Europe to
immigrate there. But with Great Britain weakened and in debt from the war, the ungrateful Zionists saw
their
opportunity to chase the British out of Palestine by committing acts of terrorism against them. The most
notorious of
the Zionist terror groups was the Irgun, whose leader Menachem Begin would one day go on to become
Prime Minister
of Israel!
On the morning of July 22, 1946, of 15-20 Irgun terrorists dressed as Arabs entered the King David
Hotel in Jerusalem.
They unloaded 225 kilograms of explosives hidden in milk churns. 23 The King David Hotel housed the
Secretariat of
the Government of Palestine and Headquarters of the British Forces in Palestine. When a British officer
became
suspicious, a shootout took place and the Irgun lit the fuses and fled. The explosion destroyed part of
the hotel and
killed 91 people. Most of the victims were British but 15 innocent jews also died, proving that radical
Zionists are
capable of even killing fellow jews in order to advance their cause.
The Irgun terror gang also targeted Arab civilians in order to frighten them into evacuating their land.
223
The most well
known of these massacres happened at the village of Deir Yassin on the morning of April 9, 1948. More
than 100
Arabs, including women and children were systematically slaughtered by Menachem Begin's murderous
gang. 24 The
Israelis took over whatever villages the terrorized Arabs fled from.
By 1948, the British had had enough of Palestine. Under intense Zionist lobbying, the UN, the UK and
the US
recognized the nation of Israel in 1948. One of the first acts of the new Israeli government was to pass
"the law of
return", which gives any jew in the world the right to move to Israel and become a citizen.
Understandably, the Arab
nations weren't too pleased about this. There would be a several wars that followed. But the Israelis and
their free
arsenal of America’s finest weapons kept the Arabs from reclaiming their land. The Arabs have never
been a match for
the US supplied Israeli war machine. The irony of "the law of return" is that many of today's jews have
no direct
ancestral link to the jews of the Old Testament. Many, perhaps even most jewish people are descended
from the
Khazars, a people whose rulers converted to Judaism sometime during the 800's AD. 25 The Khazars
never even set
foot in Palestine!
The brutal and criminal circumstances surrounding the creation of Israel are now a half century in the
past. Even most
Arabs understand that Israel isn't going to go away. But by reviewing this real history, we can better
understand the
deceptive, dangerous, and brutal nature of Zionism today.
AMERICA BECOMES THE ZIONIST'S WHORE
We have reviewed how the Zionists used and discarded Germany. Then they used and discarded Great
Britain. After
World War II, it was clear that the chief remaining global power was the United States. Now the USA
had never had
any problem with the Arab people, and had no reason to quarrel with the Arabs. For the Zionists to
maintain and
expand the support they were receiving from America, it would benefit them greatly if the Arabs and the
mighty US
could somehow become enemies. Could the Zionists possibly stoop so low? Why not? Look at what
they had already
pulled off! Remember that the official motto of the Mossad (Israeli's intelligence organization) is "by
way of deception
thou shalt do war." 26
In 1955, one of these "false flag" operations was publicly exposed for the world to see. Israeli agents,
impersonating
Arab terrorists, were caught staging a series of bombings against American installations in Egypt. 27
When this
conspiracy was exposed, it ultimately created such a controversy that it brought down the Israeli
government. The long
since forgotten scandal became known as "the Lavon Affair".
Then again during a 1967 war with the Arabs, Israeli gunboats and fighter jets deliberately attacked the
224
USS Liberty,
an unarmed US communications ship. 28 Thirty five American sailors were murdered and 170 others
injured in a
prolonged Israeli onslaught - carried out in broad daylight and with the U.S. flag flying prominently. The
intent was to
kill all of the Americans and then leave the Egyptians to take the blame. Israel denied that the attack was
deliberate but
the chilling stories of the lucky American survivors clearly contradicts that lie. To this very day, the U.S.
Congress has
never investigated the USS Liberty massacre.
In 1989, the Israelis once again succeeded in framing enemy Arabs in order to enrage America. Former
Mossad case
officer Victor Ostrosvky became so disgusted with the criminal behavior of his own government that he
defected from
the Mossad and tried to warn America of just how evil and dangerous they were. Ostrovsky revealed
exactly how the
Israelis framed Libya for the bombing of a German night club which killed American servicemen. 29 It
was this frame
up job that caused President Reagan to bomb Libya, killing the 4 year old daughter of Libyan leader
Muamar Qadaffi.
France refused to allow US bombers to fly over their air space and bomb Libya because French
intelligence knew that
Libya was unjustly framed by the Israelis. Among some of Ostrovosky's other amazing revelations are:
that the Mossad
often uses Arab agents to carry out missions, that Israeli agents are skilled at impersonating Arabs, that
Mossad had a
plan to turn American public opinion against Iraq, and that wealthy Zionists in America are often called
upon to help
carry out Mossad missions. Ostrovsky, whose tell all book, By Way of Deception, infuriated the Mossad
and made
him the target of numerous death threats. 30
In 2001, the Washington Times ran a story about a 68 page research paper issued by the Army School of
Advanced
Military Studies (SAMS). The research was compiled by 60 US Army officers as an attempt to predict
the possible
outcomes of deploying a US force to maintain peace between the Israel and Palestinians. Here’s what
SAMS had to
say about the Israeli military machine:
"a 500 pound gorilla in Israel. Well armed and trained. Operates in both Gaza and the West Bank.
Known to disregard
international law to accomplish mission" 31
Of Israel’s Mossad, the officers issued this warning:
"Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target US forces and make it look like a Palestinian
Arab act." 32
(emphasis added)
Why does the US, which is trillions of dollars in debt, gives away billons of taxpayer dollars to a foreign
government
whose military violates international laws and whose Mossad is capable of murdering US troops in order
to frame
Arabs? Have we lost our minds?
225
ZIONIST POWER STRUCTURE IN AMERICA
Now that we have established the ruthless and criminal nature of radical Zionism, one more lesson needs
to be
understood before we return to the five dancing Israelis of 9-11 and other related stories. Even the
Zionists themselves
have never denied that they have long exerted great influence in America. But what we must understand
is that the
Zionists do not merely influence United States policy....they dominate it! It is this domination that
enables them to pull
off monstrous crimes and then conceal them from the general public.
The observation that Zionists dominate the American media, government, academia, and Hollywood has
been made by
many prominent Americans and is easily verifiable by public information.
Henry Ford said this:
"If after having elected their man or group, obedience is not rendered to the Jewish control, then you
speedily hear of
"scandals" and "investigations" and "impeachments" for the removal of the disobedient. Usually a man
with a "past"
proves the most obedient instrument, but even a good man can often be tangled up in campaign
practices that
compromise him. It has been commonly known that Jewish manipulation of American election
campaigns have been so
skillfully handled, that no matter which candidate was elected, there was ready made a sufficient amount
of evidence to
discredit him in case his Jewish masters needed to discredit him." 33
Charles Lindbergh said this:
"Their greatest danger to this country lies in the Jewish ownership and influence in our motion pictures,
our press, our
radio, and our government." 34
Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff under Ronald Reagan said this:
"I've never seen a President -- I don't care who he is -- stand up to them [the Israelis]. It just boggles the
mind. They
always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. If the American people
understood what a
grip those people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens certainly don't
have any idea
what goes on." 35
While a guest on ABC's Face the Nation, William Fulbright - US Senator and Chairman of the US
Foreign Relations
committee - said this before a national television audience:
"Israel controls the United States Senate. We should be more concerned about the United States'
interests." 36
Nationally syndicated columnist and former presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan said:
"The United States Congress is Israeli occupied territory." 37
And US religious leader Billy Graham and President Richard Nixon once had the following exchange,
which was
caught on tape:
GRAHAM: "The Jewish stranglehold on the media has got to be broken or this country's going down
the drain".
NIXON: "You believe that?"
226
GRAHAM: "Yes, sir."
NIXON: "Oh boy. So do I. I can't ever say that but I do believe it" 38
But enough of quoting others. Let's look at the facts of Zionist control.
FACT: ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, UPN, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Wall Street
Journal, The New
York Daily News, Time Magazine, Newsweek, People Magazine, US News and World Report and
countless other
media and Hollywood companies all have either a Zionist CEO, a Zionist News Chief, or are owned by a
media
conglomerate which has a Zionist CEO. 39 Have you ever noticed how Hollywood movies always seem
to portray
Germans and Arabs as a bigoted fanatics or as terrorists? Now you know why!
FACT: AIPAC, the Israeli lobbying organization, is the most feared lobby in Washington DC. By their
own admission,
they are capable of unseating Congressmen and Senators that do not carry out their requests. The
majority of
Congressmen from both political parties receive large donations from AIPAC. Writing for the Nation
Magazine,
journalist Michael Massing explains:
"AIPAC is widely regarded as the most powerful foreign-policy lobby in Washington. Its 60,000
members shower
millions of dollars on hundreds of members of Congress on both sides of the aisle." Newspapers like the
New York
Times fear the Jewish lobby organizations as well. "It's very intimidating," said a correspondent at
another large daily.
"The pressure from these groups is relentless." 40 (emphasis added)
FACT: The Pentagon is under the control of a hard core Zionist named Richard Perle. The civilian
Defense Policy
Board actually wields more control over the military establishment than the Defense Secretary or the
generals and
admirals. There are a number of other Zionists who serve on the board (Kissinger, Cohen, Schlessinger)
as well as nonjewish
members who have always supported Israel and the expansion of the "War on Terror". The notoriously
belligerent Perle, nicknamed the "The Prince of Darkness", is Chairman of the Board. 41
With Perle as Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Zionist Paul Wolfowitz as Undersecretary of
Defense, and
Zionist award winner Douglass Feith as Undersecretary of Defense Policy, the Zionist Pentagon gang
controls 3 of the
top 4 civilian leadership positions of America’s armed forces. Careerist scoundrels like Condoleeza Rice
and Donald
Rumsfeld are either under their influence or unwilling to oppose their drive for WW III. The Perle-
Wolfowitz-Feith
gang represent a fanatical and warmongering "government-within-a-government". In league with these
Zionist
Pentagon conspirators are jewish Zionist and potential 2004 Presidential candidate, Senator Joseph
Lieberman (D-CT)
and his Gentile partner in crime Senator John McCain (R-AZ).
An Israeli journalist named Ari Shavit, lamenting the harsh treatments that his government dishes out to
the
Palestinians, made the following observation in Ha'aretz, a leading Israeli journal:
227
" We believe with absolute certitude that now, with the White House and Senate in our hands along with
the Pentagon
and the New York Times, the lives [of Arabs] do not count as much as our own. Their blood does not
count as much as
our blood. We believe with absolute certitude that now, when we have AIPAC [the Israel lobby] and
[Edgar] Bronfman
and the Anti-Defamation League, , we truly have the right to tell 400,000 people that in eight hours they
must flee from
their homes. And that we have the right to rain bombs on their villages and towns and populated areas.
That we have
the right to kill without any guilt." 42 (emphasis added)
And this only scratches the surface of Zionist power! With such awesome power to control and cover up
events, is it
any wonder why so many of America's journalists and politicians are afraid to even talk about this issue?
Is it any
wonder why former President Bill Clinton would grovel before a jewish audience and say something as
ridiculous as
the following statement:
"The Israelis know that if the Iraqi or the Iranian army came across the Jordan River, I would personally
grab a rifle,
get in a ditch, and fight and die." 43
I could go on and on at much greater length about this subject, but I want to get back to the dancing
Israelis. Have I
made my point yet?
THE BUTCHER SHARON
I know. I know. You want to return to the scene of the dancing Israelis on 9-11. But there is one more
quick lesson that
needs to be covered before we climb back into the time machine and fast-forward back to 9-11. If we
don’t cover this,
you won’t be able to fully understand the "big picture".
During the 1967 war, Israel occupied the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza. Thirty five
years have
passed since that war ended, yet the Israeli army continues the humiliating occupation of those
Palestinian areas. Those
areas are not part of the nation of Israel that was created in 1948 by the UN. What the Palestinian
people are resisting
today is not the 1948 confiscation of their land. They simply want the 1967 occupation to end. It is this
ongoing
occupation, not the 1948 creation of Israel, which fuels the conflict today. Prior to the current outbreak
of hostilities,
the majority of the Israeli people also supported the end of Israel's occupation and oppression of these
territories. They
elected Yitzak Rabin as Prime Minister and Rabin made more strides towards achieving peace than any
of his
processors. The 1990's were a quiet years in Israel. Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Prime Minister
Rabin appeared
to have finally reached a peace deal the US acting as the mediator.
This did not sit well with the hard core Zionists who ultimately hope to expand Israel's borders even
more. Hopes for a
lasting peace deal were soon dealt a major setback when a flurry of five bullets were pumped into Prime
228
Minister
Rabin at close range as he was attending a 1995 Israeli peace rally. It was not an Arab that killed Rabin.
It was a Zionist
fanatic named Yigal Amir. Amir was a law student at Israel’s Bar-Ilan University. He later told
investigators that he
had no regrets for his actions. 44 Amir, a bright young law student was willing to throw his life away in
the service of
the Zionist cause. (More on that concept later on.)
At the head of the Israeli government today sits a brutal man who has been a guest of honor at George
Bush's White
House on a regular basis since he took office in October 2000. His name is Ariel Sharon. His fanatical
Zionist
supporters in Israel refer to him as "Arik King", but the Arabs know him as a lifelong butcher, terrorist,
and war
criminal. There was a time when Sharon was disgraced and his political career seemed to be over. The
isolation of
Ariel Sharon was the result a 1982 Palestinian massacre which Sharon engineered when he was Israel's
Defense
minister. It was the Israelis themselves who forced Sharon to resign.
Sharon's troops blocked the exits from the Sabra and Shattila refugee camps while a Lebanese militia,
allied with the
Israeli military, went into the camps and slaughtered more than 1,500 unarmed Palestinian civilians while
raping many
women. 45 Though these Lebanese militias were the ones who did the actual killing, it was Ariel Sharon
who
controlled the militias and it was Sharon's soldiers who stood by and blocked the camp exits, deliberately
allowing the
slaughter to take place.
A survivor of the attack who had been raped and shot went to Belgium and initiated a war crimes case
against Sharon.
Several Lebanese militia leaders were summoned to testify against Sharon. Shortly before their
testimony, three of
them were suddenly killed by unknown gunmen and car bombs. Israel's Mossad of course denied any
responsibility for
the strange and untimely deaths of these three witnesses against Sharon. 46 And if you believe that one,
I’ll sell you
the World Trade Center!
After nearly 20 years of political exile, Sharon made his comeback in October 2000. Knowing full well
how much the
Palestinians hated him for his role in the 1982 massacres, Sharon and a small army of Israeli soldiers
showed up at the
Temple Mount 47 - a site held sacred by both Muslims and jews. This was a deliberate provocation.
When the
Muslims protested the Sharon provocation, the Israeli troops cracked down. Rocks were thrown and
shots were fired. In
just a matter of minutes, years of peace and the Israeli-Arab peace effort had been destroyed by Mr.
Sharon’s bullying
antics. When the fighting broke out, a frightened and propagandized Israeli population soon turned to a
strong man for
their protection - the very man who had deliberately instigated the violence in the first place. Ariel
229
Sharon was elected
Prime Minister.
True to form, Sharon has brutalized the Palestinian civilian population under the pretext of "selfdefense".
Armed and
funded by Israel's wholly owned US Congress, the Israeli war machine can bulldoze Arab homes at will.
The only
weapon that the outgunned Palestinians can retaliate with is the "suicide bomber". With every suicide
bombing, Sharon
is able to "justify" even more attacks and occupy more land. The Zionist game plan is to ultimately drive
the
Palestinians out of the West Bank and Gaza, just like the Irgun massacres had driven the Arabs out of
Deir Yassin.
Standing in the way of such a bold Zionist scheme were three major obstacles:
1. the force of world opinion. Prior to 9-11, the Palestinian struggle against Israeli occupation had
gained the sympathy
of many people around the world.
2. the force of Israeli domestic opinion (most Israelis wanted peace and were opposed to the 35 year
occupation of
Palestinian territories).
3. Saddam Hussein‘s Iraq, which had always been a champion of the cause of Palestinian self
determination.
How useful it would be for the Zionists if some "incident" were to happen which would turn American
and world
opinion against the Palestinians and ultimately drag the US into a war against Israel's Arab enemies.
Now you know
why those Israelis were celebrating on 9-11!
ADVANCE WARNINGS
The days and hours leading up to 9-11 were marked by a series of chilling warnings about impending
terrorist plots
involving hijacked commercial airplanes. It's worth mentioning at this point that months before 9-11, the
US had
already informed some of its allies of plans to go to war in Afghanistan. On June 26, 2001, News
Insight/India Reacts,
an Indian public affairs magazine, wrote:
"India and Iran will "facilitate" US and Russian plans for "limited military action" against the Taliban if
the
contemplated tough new economic sanctions don't bend Afghanistan's fundamentalist regime. Indian
officials say that
India and Iran will only play the role of "facilitator" while the US and Russia will combat the Taliban
from the front
with the help of two Central Asian countries, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, to push Taliban lines back to the
1998 position
50 km away from Mazar-e-Sharief city in northern Afghanistan. Military action will be the last option
though it now
seems scarcely avoidable with the UN banned from Taliban-controlled areas" 48
The story of US military involvement in Afghanistan was reported months before 9-11 in Indian49 and
British 50
publications but it was never reported in the US media. With the military plans already in motion since at
least June of
2001, all that was needed was for an "incident" to take place to justify the US going to "war against
230
Terrorism" in
Afghanistan.
Here are just a few of the advance warnings which were brought to light in the aftermath of 9-11:
The London Daily Telegraph reported on September 16, 2001:
"The Telegraph has learned that two senior experts with Mossad, the Israeli military intelligence service,
were sent to
Washington in August to alert the FBI and CIA to the existence of a cell of as many as 200 terrorists
said to be
preparing a big operation. They had no specific information about what was being planned but linked the
plot to Osama
Bin Laden and told American officials that there were strong grounds for suspecting Iraqi involvement."
51
Do you smell a "false flag" operation in the works? How is possible that the Mossad knew of the
existence of these 200
terrorists but could not name or locate a single one? And how convenient for Israel that Saddam Hussein
should be in
cahoots with Osama Bin Laden, despite the fact that Bin Laden and Hussein hate each other!
The Franfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, (FAZ) one of Germany’s most respected newspapers, quoted
German intelligence
sources who said that the Echelon electronic spy network gave US and Israeli intelligence agencies
several warnings
that suicidal hijack attacks were being planned against US targets. 52 Echelon is capable of monitoring
all of the
electronic communication in the world. Utilizing 120 satellites, the Echelon system is designed to suck
up enormous
amounts of data by using keyword search techniques to sift through the data. 53
The San Francisco Chronicle reported on September 12 that San Francisco Mayor and former California
Assembly
Speaker Willie Brown was advised eight hours before the attacks that he should be careful about flying
on 9-11. 54
In its September 24, 2001 issue, Newsweek Magazine broke this startling revelation:
"Three weeks ago there was another warning that a terrorist strike might be imminent… On September
10, Newsweek
has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly cancelled travel plans for the next morning,
apparently because
of security concerns.". 55 (emphasis added)
Wow! Could these unnamed "top Pentagon officials" have been some of the Zionist directors of the
Defense Policy
Board which we talked about earlier? If these Pentagon officials were scared enough not to fly, then why
didn’t the
Pentagon place the Air Force on full alert? How could they have been so slow to react to 9-11 when
they already knew
there was a threat?
On September 27, The Washington Post reported that two workers of the Israeli company Odigo (with
offices also in
New York) received instant message warnings just two hours before the attacks. Here’s an excerpt from
the
Washington Post:
"Officials at instant-messaging firm Odigo confirmed today that two employees received text messages
warning of an
231
attack on the World Trade Center two hours before terrorists crashed planes into the New York
landmarks" 56
Soon after the attacks, the Odigo employees informed the management of the electronic message they
had received.
Israeli security services were contacted and the FBI was informed. Nothing has been heard about this
event since. I
think it's safe to say that "Islamic terrorists" would not have been considerate enough to send detailed Email
warnings
to some obscure Israeli office workers.
THE SEPTEMBER 11 DANCE PARTY
Let us review what we have learned. We have clearly established that Zionists played a key role in
steering the US into
two World Wars. We have clearly established that Zionists do not care if Americans (or others) are killed
to further
their goals. We have clearly established that Zionists have a record of attacking Americans in order to
frame Arabs. We
have established that the Zionists are capable of acts of unspeakable brutality and genocide. We have
established that
US politicians fear the Zionist Mafia and defy them at their own peril. We have learned that warnings of
a suicidal
hijacking plot were issued to several people. And most importantly of all, we have clearly established
that the Zionists
have the capacity to make these amazing stories suddenly disappear from their controlled news media.
Having established these precedents, we can now easily deduce that the reason why those five dancing
Israeli agents
who celebrated the 9-11 attacks were so happy is because they knew that Americans would now become
unconditional
supporters of their "Israeli ally" and fanatical haters of Muslims and Arabs. On the day of the attacks,
former Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the attack would mean for US-Israeli relations. His
quick reply
was "It's very good…….Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)" 57
The five Israelis made such a spectacle that everyone who saw them felt compelled to call the police.
According to
ABC’s 20/20, when the van belonging to the cheering Israelis was stopped by the police, the first words
out of the
driver's (Sivan Kurzberg) lying mouth were: "We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems
are our
problems. The Palestinians are your problem." 58 The police and FBI field agents became really
suspicious when they
found box cutters (the same items that the hijackers supposedly used), $4700 cash stuffed in a sock, and
foreign
passports. Police also told the Bergen Record that bomb sniffing dogs were brought to the van and that
they reacted as
if they had smelled explosives. 59
From there, the story gets becomes even more suspicious. The Israelis worked for a Weehawken moving
company
known as Urban Moving Systems. An American employee of Urban Moving Systems told the Bergen
Record that a
majority of his co-workers were Israelis and they were all joking about the attacks. The employee, who
232
declined to give
his name said: "I was in tears. These guys were joking and that bothered me." 60
A few days after the attacks, Urban Moving System's Israeli owner, Dominick Suter, dropped his
business and fled the
country. He was in such a hurry to flee America that some of Urban Moving System's customers were
left with their
furniture stuck in storage facilities. 61 The five Israeli army veterans (Mossad) were held in custody for
several
months before being quietly released. Some of the movers had been kept in solitary confinement for 40
days. 62
Immediately following the attacks, the Zionist controlled media was filled with stories linking the attacks
to Bin Laden.
TV talking-heads and scribblers of every stripe spoon-fed a gullible American public a steady diet of the
most
outrageous propaganda imaginable. We were told that the reason Bin Laden attacked the USA was
because he hates
our "freedom" and "democracy". The Muslims were "medieval" and they wanted to destroy us because
of our wealth.
But Bin Laden strongly denied any role in the attacks and suggested that Zionists orchestrated the 9-11
attacks:
"I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the
attacks. There
exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace
the
perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a century
of conflict
between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the
attacks....The
American system is totally in control of the Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States." 63
To date, the only shred of "evidence" to be uncovered against Bin Laden was a highly suspicious, barely
audible
amateur video, that the Zionist dominated Pentagon just happened to find "lying around" in Afghanistan.
Though there
is no evidence, be it hard or circumstantial, to link the Al Qaeda "terrorist network" to these acts of
terror; there is in
fact a mountain of evidence, both hard and circumstantial, which suggests that the Zionist Mafia has
been very busy
framing Arabs for terror plots against America.
WHO WAS REALLY FLYING THOSE PLANES ON 9-11?
Hours after the 9-11 attacks, authorities began to find clues conveniently left for them to stumble upon.
The Boston
Globe reported that a copy of the Koran, instructions on how to fly a commercial airplane and a fuel
consumption
calculator were found in a pair of bags meant for one of the hijacked flights that left from Logan. 64
Authorities also received a "tip" about a suspicious white car left behind at Boston's Logan Airport. An
Arabiclanguage
flight training manual was found inside the car. 65
How fortunate for investigators that the hijackers "forgot" to take their Koran and Arab flight manuals
with them!
Within a few days, all "19 hijackers" were "identified" and their faces were plastered all over our
233
television screens.
Then, like a script from a corny "B" spy movie, the official story gets even more ridiculous. The passport
of the
supposed "ringleader" Mohammed Atta, somehow managed to survive the explosion, inferno, and
smoldering collapse
to be oh-so-conveniently "found" just a few blocks away from the World Trade Center! 66
It is obvious that this "evidence" was planted by individuals wishing to direct the blame towards Osama
Bin Laden.
How is it possible that Arab students who had never flown an airplane could take a simulator course and
then fly jumbo
jets with the skill and precision of "top-gun" pilots? It is not possible and the fact is, the true identities of
the 9-11
hijackers remains a mystery. In the days following the disclosure of the "hijackers" names and faces, no
less than 7 of
the Arab individuals named came forward to protest their obvious innocence. 67
That's right! Seven of the nineteen "hijackers" are alive and well. They were victims of identity theft,
some of whom
had had their passports stolen. They were interviewed by several news organizations including the
Telegraph of
England. Here’s an excerpt from David Harrison’s Telegraph story entitled:
Revealed: The Men With Stolen Identities:
"Their names were flashed around the world as suicide hijackers who carried out the attacks on
America. But yesterday
four innocent men told how their identities had been stolen.
The men - all from Saudi Arabia - spoke of their shock at being mistakenly named by the FBI as suicide
terrorists.
None of the four was in the United States on September 11 and all are alive in their home country.
The Telegraph obtained the first interviews with the men since they learnt that they were on the FBI's list
of hijackers
who died in the crashes in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.
All four said that they were "outraged" to be identified as terrorists. One has never been to America and
another is a
Saudi Airlines pilot who was on a training course in Tunisia at the time of the attacks. Saudi Airlines said
it was
considering legal action against the FBI for seriously damaging its reputation and that of its pilots." 68
(emphasis added)
The story of these identity thefts was also briefly reported by ABC 69 and BBC (England) 70 The FBI
does not deny
this. Nobody denies this fact because it is easily verifiable. Instead, the US media and government just
ignore this
inconvenient little fact and keep right on repeating the monstrous lie that the hijacker identities are
known and that 15
of them were Saudis.
CNN revealed that FBI director Robert Mueller openly admitted that some of the identities of the 9-11
hijackers are in
question due to identity theft. Here’s what CNN reported on September 21:
FBI Director Robert Mueller has acknowledged that some of those behind last week's terror attacks may
have stolen the
identification of other people, and, according to at least one security expert, it may have been "relatively
easy" based on
234
their level of sophistication. 71
This opens up a whole Pandora’s box of unanswered questions. First and foremost of which is this: why
would Osama
Bin laden, the Saudi Arabian caveman, steal identities? To cover his tracks you say? Next question: why
would a Saudi
Arabian, attempting to cover his tracks, steal the identities of....fellow Saudi Arabians??? What would be
the point?
Why go you through the trouble of stealing identities that would point back to you? Why not steal
Greek identities, or
Brazilian identities, or Turkish ones? A much more logical conclusion is that non-Arabs stole these
identities as part of
a "false flag" operation designed to point the blame at Arabs, and Saudi Arabs in particular.
What kind of a corrupt character is FBI boss Mueller? He initially admitted that false identities were
involved with 9-
11, but then he allows the media to keep naming these innocent, and alive, Arabs as the hijackers? Why
doesn’t he
correct them? More on the slimy Mr. Mueller later on!
Now I'm really going to rock your faith in the false religion of 9-11. In February of 2000, Indian
intelligence officials
detained 11 members of what they thought was an Al Qaeda hijacking conspiracy. It was then
discovered that these 11
"Muslim preachers" were all Israeli nationals! India’s leading weekly magazine, The Week, reported:
On January 12 Indian intelligence officials in Calcutta detained 11 foreign nationals for interrogation
before they were
to board a Dhaka-bound Bangladesh Biman flight. They were detained on the suspicion of being
hijackers. "But we
realized that they were tabliqis (Islamic preachers), so we let them go", said an Intelligence official.
The eleven had Israeli passports but were believed to be Afghan nationals who had spent a while in Iran.
Indian
intelligence officials, too, were surprised by the nationality profile of the eleven. "They say that they
have been on
tabligh (preaching Islam) in India for two months. But they are Israeli nationals from the West Bank,"
said a Central
Intelligence official. He claimed that Tel Aviv "exerted considerable pressure" on Delhi to secure their
release. "It
appeared that they could be working for a sensitive organization in Israel and were on a mission to
Bangladesh," the
official said. 72 (emphasis added)
What were these 11 Israelis doing trying to impersonate Al Qaeda men? Infiltrating?...perhaps.
Framing?...more likely.
But the important precedent to understand is this: Israeli agents were once caught red handed
impersonating Muslim
hijackers!
This event becomes even more mind boggling when we learn that it was Indian Intelligence that helped
the US to so
quickly identify the "19 hijackers" On April 3, 2002, Express India, quoting the Press Trust of India,
revealed:
Washington, April 3: Indian intelligence agencies helped the US to identify the hijackers who carried out
the deadly
September 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, a media report said here on Wednesday. 73
235
Ain't that a kick in the ass?!! Did you catch that? The Indian intelligence officials that were duped into
mistaking Israeli
agents for Al Qaeda hijackers back in 2000, were the very same clowns telling the FBI who it was that
hijacked the 9-
11 planes! Keep in mind that Indian intelligence has an extremely close working relationship with Israel’s
Mossad
because both governments hate the Muslim nation of Pakistan. 74
Now about Mohamed Atta, you know, the so-called "ring leader". There are a number of inconsistencies
with that story
as well. Like some of the 7 hijackers known to be still alive, Atta also had his passport stolen in 1999, 75
(the same
passport that miraculously survived the WTC explosion and collapse?) making him an easy mark for an
identity theft.
Atta was known to all as a shy, timid, and sheltered young man who was uncomfortable with women. 76
The 5 foot 7
inch, 150 pound architecture student was such a "goody two shoes" that some of his university
acquaintances in
Germany refrained from drinking or cursing in front of him. How this gentle, non- political mamma's boy
from a good
Egyptian family suddenly transformed himself into the vodka drinking, go-go girl groping terrorist
animal described by
the media, has to rank as the greatest personality change since another classic work of fiction, Dr. Jekyll
and Mr. Hyde.
Atta, or someone using Atta's identity, had enrolled in a Florida flight school in 2001 and then broke off
his training,
making it a point to tell his instructor he was leaving for Boston. In an October 2001 interview with an
ABC affiliate in
Florida, flight school president Rudi Dekkers said that his course does not qualify pilots to fly
commercial jumbo jets.
77 He also described Atta as "an asshole". 78 Part of the reason for Dekker's dislike for Atta stems from
a highly
unusual incident that occurred at the beginning of the course. Here’s the exchange between ABC
producer Quentin
McDermott and Dekkers:
MCDERMOTT: "Why do you say Atta was an asshole?"
DEKKERS: "Well, when Atta was here and I saw his face on several occasions in the building, then I
know that they're
regular students and then I try to talk to them, it's kind of a PR - where are you from? I tried to
communicate with him.
I found out from my people that he lived in Hamburg and he spoke German so one of the days that I
saw him, I speak
German myself, I'm a Dutch citizen, and I started in the morning telling him in German, "Good morning.
How are you?
How do you like the coffee? Are you happy here?", and he looked at me with cold eyes, didn't react at
all and walked
away. That was one of my first meetings I had." 79
This is eerily similar to the way in which Zacharias Moussaoui (the so-called "20th hijacker") became
"belligerent"
when his Minnesota flight instructor tried to speak to him in French (his first language), at the beginning
of that course.
236
The Minnessota Star Tribune reported on December 21, 2001:
"Moussaoui first raised eyebrows when, during a simple introductory exchange, he said he was from
France, but then
didn't seem to understand when the instructor spoke French to him. Moussaoui then became belligerent
and evasive
about his background, (Congressman) Oberstar and other sources said. In addition, he seemed inept in
basic flying
procedure, while seeking expensive training on an advanced commercial jet simulator." 80 (emphasis
added)
It truly is an amazing twist of fate that both Atta and Moussaoui both had American flight instructors
who spoke
German and French respectively. Even the great Mossad could not have foreseen such a coincidence!
The real Atta
would have been able to respond to his instructor’s German small talk and the real Moussaoui would
have been able to
respond to his instructor’s French small talk. Atta just walked away and Moussaoui threw a fit! Neither
responded
because neither could. They were imposters, whose faces were probably disguised by a make up artist.
Their mission
was to frame the two innocent Arabs who were probably targeted by the Mossad at random.
The imposter was able to create a new Atta by using Atta's stolen passport from 1999 - the same
passport that floated
safely to the ground with a few burnt edges on 9-11. These strange inconsistencies tend to give support
to Mohammed
Atta's father's claim that he spoke over the phone with his son on September 12th, the day after the
attacks. 81 Could a
group of professionals have abducted and killed the real Atta in the days following the 9-11 attacks?
Mossad agents,
posing as "art students" were arrested after conducting some type of operation in Hollywood, Florida,
the same small
town that Atta stayed in! 82 So what happened to the real Mohammed Atta? To quote his grief stricken
father: "Ask
Mossad!".
So who, if not the "19 Arabs" was on those planes? That’s the million dollar question! There are a
number of
alternative scenarios. Could some Israelis have been fanatical enough to have volunteered for such a
suicide mission?
Odd as that may sound at first, it is not out of the realm of possibility. The fact is, hard-core Zionist
extremists have
proven themselves to be every bit as fanatical, (more so), than Arab extremists.
A nation which can produce thousands of bloodthirsty Zionist extremists, Irgun war criminals, Mossad
terrorists who
blow up occupied buildings, assassins who kill Israeli Prime Ministers in full view of policemen, and
crazed killers
who have carried sickening massacres of Arab women and children; would surely be capable of
recruiting a few
fanatics willing to sacrifice for "the cause". This theory becomes even more plausible when we consider
that only the
pilots would have needed to know that the planes were on a suicide mission.
Still don’t think Israel is capable of producing suicidal terrorists? Have you already forgotten the case of
237
Dr. Baruch
Goldstein?. Goldstein was a New York doctor and resettled in Israel. On February 25, 1994, Goldstein
walked into a
crowded Arab mosque in the occupied West Bank. With hundreds of worshippers kneeled in silent
prayer, Goldstein
sealed off the exit, and opened fire with a rapid-firing assault rifle, killing 29 and wounding many more.
Goldstein, a
father of four, was finally stopped and killed when the frenzied crowd overpowered him. With as many
as 800
worshippers packed into the mosque, Goldstein surely could not have been expecting to come out alive.
This was
clearly a suicide attack. And what did Goldstein’s mother have to say about her son’s suicide attack? The
Boston Globe
revealed:
"The mother of Baruch Goldstein, the Jewish settler who massacred about 40 Palestinians in a Hebron
mosque a week
ago, says she is proud of her son. "I always thought to myself, When would someone get up and do such
a thing? And
in the end, my son did it," Miriam Goldstein told the weekly Shishi newspaper." 83
It gets even more sickening than that. Baruch Goldstein has become a folk hero among many of the
crazed side-locked
settlers who have encroached upon the West Bank. They have turned Goldstein’s gravesite into a
memorial and set up a
website to honor his murderous deed! Look what these fanatics posted on the Goldstein memorial
website:
Over the years, the grave has become a site of pilgrimage. Numerous people from all over the world
come to pray and
honor his (Baruch’s) memory. 84
(emphasis added)
One has to wonder if some of Goldstein’s admirers were flying those planes on 9-11. There is one
interesting side note
here which may or may not be of any significance. One of the two Israelis who died aboard the hijacked
planes was
Daniel Lewin - who was aboard the first plane to crash into the Twin Towers. The Ha‘aretz News
Service of Israel
revealed that Lewin, was a one-time officer in the Israeli Defense Forces elite Sayeret Matkal
commando unit. 85
Oddly enough, Lewin’s name is missing from CNN’s comprehensive September 11 Memorial website.
Another possibility is that some other group of "patsies" was recruited for the operation. Perhaps some
anarchists, or
some leftover Marxists who thought they were going to bring down western capitalism. Or perhaps, the
hijackers were
another group of angry Arabs who weren’t even aware of who their true handlers really were or what
the broader
strategic aim of the mission actually was. In the dark world of covert operations, agents are often kept
ignorant of who
it is that orchestrating the show.
Admittedly, these scenarios are speculative, but one thing that is not speculative is this: the hijackers
were not the 19
men whose faces were shown on our TV screens!
238
WHO PROVIDED THE PROTECTIVE COVER FOR THE 9-11 OPERATION?
On October 26, 1999, the famous golfer Payne Stewart boarded a private Learjet in Florida and left for
Texas. Shortly
after takeoff, Stewart's jet veered sharply off course and began heading northwest. All contact with air
controllers was
lost. Within 15 minutes of having gone off course, US fighter jets had already intercepted the jet.
Everyone on board
was likely dead due to depressurization. These fighter jets were dispatched by NORAD, the branch of
the US air force
whose job it is to monitor and defend US airspace 24 hours a day. NORAD maintains a huge array of
land based radar
systems and has fighter jets on alert 24 hours a day so that they can respond to a crisis. The jets escorted
the doomed
airplane until another group of Air National Guard jets took over the escort mission. Finally, Stewart's
jet ran out of
fuel a crashed in South Dakota. The quick reaction time and military precision with which NORAD
intercepted and
escorted Stewart's jet was impressive, and exactly what one would have expected from the greatest
military power in
world history. 86
But on 9-11, the same NORAD which had so effortlessly intercepted Stewart's jet in 1999, was nowhere
to be found
during that two hour period between the first planes going off course and the last one crashing in a
Pennsylvania field.
How is it possible that the airspace between Boston and Washington DC, an area which contains the
political and
economic heart of the nation, was left completely defenseless? The second plane to hit the New York
had flown off
course without communication for 40 minutes. On its way to New York, it actually flew within a few
miles of McGuire
Air Force base in New Jersey, after the first tower had already been hit! And how is it possible that
Washington DC
was left undefended (long after the New York attacks) when Andrews Air Force base is within car
driving distance?
The air force jets which did finally arrive were too late. Was this due to NORAD's incompetence, or was
the order to
scramble the fighter jets deliberately delayed so that the terror attacks could take place. Given NORAD's
impressive
performance in the 1999 Payne Stewart disaster, this would suggest that someone high up in the Air
Force
establishment may have issued stand down orders to some of our Air Force bases. Remember, the
Pentagon's Defense
Policy Board is headed by Zionist Richard Perle and his gang of warmongering lackeys.87 The civilians
on this board
wield the power to promote career minded Generals and Admirals. Is it really that hard to believe that a
highly placed
military leader could have collaborated with the true 9-11 planners?
What makes the Air Force's slow response even more outrageous and suspicious is that previously
mentioned
Newsweek article which revealed that several Pentagon leaders (Defense Policy Board?) cancelled flight
239
plans for
September 11 due to security concerns.88 There were other warning signals too which we’re reviewed
earlier. In light
of all these warnings, why wasn’t NORAD and it's armada of fighters placed on an even higher alert
than they already
are? There is only one logical answer to these questions: Certain Pentagon leaders were "in on it".
General Hamid Gul, a former Director of Pakistani Intelligence hit the nail on the head with his analysis:
"The attacks against New York and Washington were Israeli engineered."
"The attacks started at 8:45, and four flights are diverted from their assigned air space and no Air Force
fighter jets
scramble until 10:00. Radars are jammed, transponders fail and no IFF - friend or foe identification -
challenge. In
Pakistan, if there is no response to an IFF, jets are instantly scrambled. This was clearly an inside job.
Will this also be
hushed up in the investigation, like the Kennedy assassination?" 89
This raises another troubling set of questions. Surely the masterminds of the 9-11 operation would have
taken the time
to learn something about US air defense procedures. They would therefore have realized that hitting
New York City
with jets hijacked from Boston would have been difficult. New York is about 30 minutes away by
airplane and jumbo
jets fly very slowly when compared to US fighter jets that can crack the sound barrier. Even with a 15-
20 minute head
start, NORAD's jets could have easily intercepted them, especially the second plane, which took a longer
route to New
York and flew way off course for 40 minutes. Why choose Boston's airport and jeopardize the success
of the operation?
Wouldn't it be safer to just hijack planes from New York's Kennedy or La Guardia Airports? Or even
Newark, NJ
which is just across the river. Any plane hijacked from either of those three busy airports would have
been unstoppable.
Even a plane from Philadelphia's Airport would have been much closer to the target than far away
Boston.
The planners were no dummies. They must have counted on receiving protective cover and a window of
opportunity by
someone high up at US Air command. Why else choose Boston? In addition to the protection that the
planners were to
receive from certain Air Force elements, there is another plausible theory for choosing Boston's Logan
Airport as well
as United and American Airlines planes. It should be noted that the firm which provides security at
Boston's Logan
Airport and also Newark Airport, and also works extensively with United and American Airlines, is a
company called
Huntleigh USA. 90 Claiming that Huntleigh USA's airport security was grossly negligent on 9-11, family
members of
some of the victims are suing Huntleigh. 91 Huntleigh USA had been acquired by ICTS International in
1999. ICTS is
controlled by two Israelis; Ezra Harel and Menachem Atzmon. 92 In short, security at Boston's Logan
airport was
handled (or mishandled) by an Israeli controlled company. Is there a connection here? Could agents have
240
been
infiltrated into Logan Airport under Israeli owned Huntleigh's cover? It's quite possible. In the days
following the 9-11
attacks, Israeli security professionals began aggressively marketing themselves in order to gain more
airport security
jobs. 93 Americans should be grateful to have such wonderful allies who care about our airport security
so much!
Could some of the failure of our defense systems be attributed to a cyber attack from computer hackers?
Our defense
and intelligence systems are very dependent upon technology. A well coordinated attack on these
systems may also
have contributed to our inability to expose and prevent the attacks. There is one group that has the
capability to attack
our military computer systems.
In July of 1999, Ha’aretz (Israel) ran a story headlined: "Hackers Using Israeli Net Site to Strike at
Pentagon": Ha’aretz
reported:
"An Israeli Internet site is being used by international computer hackers as a base for electronic attacks
on US
government and military computer systems, according to Pentagon officials who were quoted in a
Washington Timnes
report yesterday."
"According to the Times, the real danger to US national security is the threat posed by foreign
intelligence services or
governments that could launch electronic warfare against the United States" 94
And look what the US Department of Justice wrote in this 1998 press release:
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- "The Department of Justice, in conjunction with the FBI, the Air Force Office
of Special
Investigation, the National Aeronautic and Space Administration and the Naval Criminal Investigative
Service,
announced today that the Israeli National Police arrested Ehud Tenebaum, an Israeli citizen, for illegally
accessing
computers belonging to the Israeli and United States governments, as well as hundreds of other
commercial and
educational systems in the United States and elsewhere." 95
No doubt about it. Covert elements in Israel have been targeting the US military’s defense systems for
some time now.
This could very well have been yet another instrument played during the great orchestrated concert of 9-
11.
THE CURIOUS COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS
The government/media approved version of events insists that the fires in the World Trade Center
burned so hot that
they caused steel supports to melt and buckle, thus triggering a total collapse of the towers. This is a
strange theory for
a number of reasons:
1. The architects who designed the World Trade Center designed it to withstand the direct impact and
fuel fire of a
commercial airline crash. Aaron Swirsky, one of the architects of the WTC described the collapse as
"incredible" and
"unbelievable." 96
241
Lee Robertson, the project's structural engineer said: "I designed it for a 707 to hit it. The Boeing 707
has a fuel
capacity comparable to the 767." 97
2. The history of high-rise building fires provides no case histories of buildings collapsing due to steel
beams melting
from a fire.
3. The collapse of both towers were both perfectly symmetrical and methodical. The straight down
collapse was
identical in appearance to a well engineered, controlled implosion. A demolition company could not have
done it better.
Now that we know that all one has to do to bring a tall building straight down is set a fuel fire in it, the
well trained
experts who work for demolition companies should all be out of a job by now!
Even a layman with no explosives background should be able to see this. But many specialists in the
explosives and
structural engineering have also made this observation and commented on these inconsistencies. After
the WTC
collapse, the Vice President of New Mexico Tech, Van Romero, gave an interview to the Albuquerque
Journal. He
stated plainly that he believed that the WTC collapse was too methodical and that explosive devices
must have been
placed in key points of both buildings. Romero said:
"It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that. It could have been a
relatively small
amount of explosives placed in strategic points. One of the things that terrorists are noted for is a
diversionary attack
and a secondary device." 98
In that same interview, Romero revealed that he was in Washington DC when the attacks took place. He
and a
colleague were there to discuss defense research programs for New Mexico Tech. A few days after his
interview,
Romero abruptly changed his opinion and told the Albuquerque Journal that he no longer believed that
bombs brought
down the towers. 99 Romero, who relies upon the Zionist occupied Pentagon for funding, had suddenly
flip-flopped
and joined the "melted steel" theorists.
There is more than just my own common sense and Romero's expert opinion to support the belief that
the towers were
imploded from within. Several witnesses and survivors reported hearing bombs going off inside the
World Trade
Center. Louie Cacchioli is a firefighter with Engine 47 in Harlem, New York. Cacchioli told People
Magazine the
following:
"I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On
the last trip up a
bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building." 100
Now this whole controversy between the "melted steel" scenario and the detonation scenario is one that
could be very
easily resolved. All we have to do is dig up the steel beams and examine each and everyone of them. If
an explosive
242
device caused the steel to fail, there will be tell-tale indications for the engineers to see. But if it was
intense heat that
caused the steel to "melt" or "buckle", there will be tell-tale signs of that as well. All we have to do to
put an end to this
controversy is to closely examine the steel. Right?
Well, don't hold your breath. That's never going to happen. Thanks in large part to Time Magazine's
"Man of the Year
2001", New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the steel beams were quickly recycled before investigators even
had the
chance to look at them! A media darling and lifelong supporter of Israel, Saint Rudy Giuliani made sure
that the
"smoking gun" evidence was destroyed and right quick too. Much of the steel was recycled in America,
but an
additional seventy thousand tons of WTC steel was sold to Metals Management - a New York company
with a jewish
(Zionist?) president named Alan Ratner. Ratner then turned around and shipped the WTC’s steel to
China and India for
recycling! 101
China Radio International’s English Edition also reported:
"New York's Metals Management is among the firms taking steel from the huge project to clear Ground
Zero. The
company says it has bought 70,000 tons of scrap from the ruined twin towers. Some of the scrap has
been shipped
across the Pacific to Asian, including China and India. Among the consignments of scrap are the "very
dense" steel
girders from Ground Zero, which could finally yield 250,000 to 400,000 tons of scrap for recycling."
102
Imaine that! The largest criminal investigation in history and the investigators weren't even permitted to
see the most
important evidence of all - the steel! During the time that Saint Rudy and Ratner the Recycler were
destroying
evidence, many of the most respected engineers in the country complained not only about the recycling,
but also about
the Federal government's suffocating control of their investigation. On December 25, 2001, the New
York Times ran a
story about the frustrations of some of the engineers who were called in to study the cause of the
collapse:
"Interviews with a handful of members of the team, which includes some of the nation's most respected
engineers, also
uncovered complaints that they had at various times been shackled with bureaucratic restrictions that
prevented them
from interviewing witnesses, examining the disaster site and requesting crucial information like recorded
distress calls
to the police and fire departments..." 103 (emphasis added)
They made their concerns known publicly. Bill Manning, editor of the 125 year old Fire Engineering
magazine, noticed
a strange difference between the WTC investigation and other major fire investigations in New York
City’s history.
Manning wrote:
"Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas
243
can used at the
happy land social club fire?...That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center. The destruction and
removal of
evidence must stop immediately." 104
One investigator told the New York Times:
"This is almost the dream team of engineers in the country working on this, and our hands are tied," said
one team
member who asked not to be identified. Members have been threatened with dismissal for speaking to
the press.
"FEMA is controlling everything," the team member said. 105
Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer from the Fire Engineering department at the University of Maryland told the
New York
Times:
"I find the speed with which important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling." 106
Finally, the Times story made this interesting little revelation about St. Rudy the Recycler:
"Officials in the mayor's office declined to reply to written and oral requests for comment over a threeday
period
about who decided to recycle the steel and the concern that the decision might be handicapping the
investigation.." 107
It is a very odd form of science that the government and some of its house scientists practice these days.
Without a
shred of physical evidence, these modern-day alchemists have been able to "prove" their theory fire
caused the towers
to collapse. This appears to be yet another monstrous lie. Why else would you destroy the "melted
steel"? Ask Rudy.
THE MIRACLE OF PASSOVER
Not just Americans were murdered on 9-11. Nearly 500 foreign nationals from over 80 different nations
were killed in
the World Trade Center. 108 As a center of world trade and finance this is not surprising. It is also
commonly known
that many Israelis work in the field of international trade and finance. The laws of probability dictate that
among the
nearly 500 dead foreign nationals, from over 80 different nations, there should have been a considerable
number of
Israelis. But the number of Israeli dead was suspiciously low, especially when we consider the report,
contained in the
September 12 Jerusalem Post, that the Israeli embassy in America was bombarded on 9-11 with calls
from 4000
worried Israeli families. 109 George Bush had told the US Congress that he also mourned the deaths of
foreign citizens
including "more than 130 Israelis". 110 But Bush was either misinformed or he was lying. The actual
number of Israeli
dead at the WTC was far less than 130. It was far less than 100. It was far less than 50. It was far less
than 25. It was far
less than 10. It was……. zero! 111A That's right! ZERO Israeli nationals lost their lives in the WTC
while citizens
from over 80 different nations, including such powerhouses of world trade and finance as Granada,
Bermuda, Ireland,
244
and the Philippines, all lost people in the WTC.
*(One Israeli was killed aboard each of the flights that crashed into the WTC. None were killed in the
WTC itself.)
We learned earlier about the employees of the Israeli instant messaging company Odigo, who were
anonymously
informed of the attacks two hours before they took place. 112 Even more intriguing than the Odigo
warnings was the
narrow escape of 200 employees of an Israeli government run company called Zim Israel Navigational.
With over 80
vessels, Zim Navigational is the 9th largest shipping company in the world. Just one week before 9-11,
Zim
Navigational moved out of its World Trade Center offices with over 200 workers. 113A , 113B
Company spokesperson Dan Nadler said: "When we watched the pictures, we felt so lucky. Our entire
US operations
were run out of the 16th floor." 114A ,114B
Zim moved to Virginia. Nadler added that the aim of the sudden move "was to save on rent". 115A,
115B Somehow
the claim that a major global shipping firm, backed up by government money, needed to save a few
bucks on rent lacks
credibility. And oh what perfect timing!
So who tipped off Zim? Who tipped off Odigo? Who tipped off those Pentagon officials? Who tipped off
those Israeli
workers in New York? I think it's safe to say it wasn't Osama Bin Laden.
FRAMING BIN LADEN
Within minutes after the attack, a parade of politicians and "terrorism experts" appeared on every TV
channel all
claiming that the attacks were the work of Osama Bin Laden. The Bush administration claimed that it
had evidence
linking Bin Laden to the attacks which it would release to the public in a matter of days. They never did.
Just like they
never provided any evidence that he blew up the US embassies in Africa in 1997. The entire case against
Osama Bin
Laden was based on nothing but the repeated claim that he was the culprit for the embassy bombings
and for 9-11.
Demands were placed upon the Taleban government of Afghanistan turn Bin Laden over to the US or
face an attack
(we established earlier that US military action had already been planned since June). 116A ,116B The
Taleban offered
to turn Bin Laden over to a neutral party if the US provided any evidence to them that he had anything
to do with the
1997 US African embassy bombings or the 9-11 attacks. The evidence was never presented to the
Taleban for two
reasons:
1. There was never any evidence, not even circumstantial
2. The war to replace the Taleban with a US puppet government was already in motion. The 9-11
attacks served as the
perfect excuse, the "incident" to win the support of the American people and kick off the war.
Three months after the attacks, and with the bombing of Afghani peasants in full swing, the US had still
not provided
one shred of evidence to link Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda "network" to 9-11. People in foreign countries
245
were
beginning to ask questions. Then one day, the Pentagon claimed that some unnamed source found a
video tape in
Afghanistan. The Bush gang began dropping hints in the media that this video shows Osama Bin Laden
bragging and
admitting his role in the attacks. How convenient! And how improbable. The "mastermind" of 9-11, who
was so
brilliant that he pulled off 9-11 without being detected, was careless enough to leave a "confession
video" laying
around to be discovered by the US!
The video was shown on the news with English subtitles. Bin Laden's voice was so barely audible that
even viewers in
Arab nations had to rely on the Pentagon’s translated subtitles! An obedient American (Zionist) news
media accepted
the Pentagon story and translation without question. A few Arab media whores were even trotted out to
vouch for the
tape’s authenticity. Aha! This is the "smoking gun" they assured us. But this too is another vicious lie.
On December 20, 2001, the German TV show Monitor (the "60 Minutes of Germany") found the
translation of the
"confession" video to be not only "inaccurate", but even "manipulative". 117 Dr. Abdel El M. Husseini
and Professor
Gernot Rotter made an independent translation and accused the White House translators of "writing a
lot of things that
they wanted to hear but cannot be heard on the tape no matter how many times you listen to it." 118
Even more compelling than the revelations of the European press are the actual images of the
"confession video".
Every photo previously taken of Osama Bin laden shows gaunt facial features and a long thin nose. The
Pentagon video
of Bin Laden clearly shows a man with full facial features and a wide nose. Examine the pictures sideby-
side for
yourself if you don't believe it. The differences in facial features will jump right out at you. 119
Would the Pentagon leadership be capable of such deception? Why not?! They were capable of allowing
9-11 to
happen weren't they? The Pentagon itself has even admitted the existence of a special department
established for the
purpose of planting false stories in the media in order to carry out strategic objectives. The very Zionist
and very prowar
New York Times broke a story in February 2002 which revealed that the Pentagon has plans to
deliberately
provide false stories to the press as part of an effort to influence policy. The Pentagon set up the Office
of Strategic
Influence (OSI) for this purpose. A Zionist Air Force General named Simon P. Worden was chosen to
head this
criminal effort. 120 Worden's boss is Douglass Feith, another dedicated Zionist who serves as
Undersecretary of
Defense for Policy. How dedicated of a Zionist is Feith? The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA)
honored Feith
and his father at an award dinner in 1999. So I’ll let ZOA’s 1997 press release you about Feith:
"This year's honorees will be Dalck Feith and Douglas J. Feith, the noted Jewish philanthropists and pro-
Israel activists.
246
Dalck Feith will receive the ZOA's special Centennial Award at the dinner, for his lifetime of service to
Israel and the
Jewish people. His son Douglas J. Feith, the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, will receive
the prestigious
Louis D. Brandeis Award at the dinner." (121)- (Google usues enter: feith zionist organization award)
There you have it! The Zionist Air Force General who runs the Pentagon’s media disinformation
department, reports
directly to a Zionist Pentagon boss who was a recipient of the "prestigious" Louis Brandeis Award.
Brandeis, a former
Supreme Court judge, was one of the key Zionist powerbrokers who helped influence Woodrow Wilson
into joining
World War I as part of the Zionist-British Balfour deal we learned about earlier.
One year has passed since the 9-11 attacks and the FBI has not uncovered any Al Qaeda cells in the
United States nor
has it found any paper trail. The London Times reported:
"Thousands of FBI agents have rounded up more than 1,300 suspects across America since September
11, but they
have failed to find a single Al-Qaeda cell operating in the United States...Tom Ridge, Director of
Homeland Security
could not explain why none had been caught." 122
In April of 2002, FBI director Robert Mueller - the same Robert Mueller who admitted that several
hijacker identities
were in doubt due to identity thefts- made this stunning announcement:
"In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper - either here or in the treasure trove
of information
that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere - that mentioned any aspect of the September 11 plot."
123
Predictably, Directors Ridge and Mueller attribute this total lack of any evidence to the skill of the Al -
Qaeda "terrorist
network". If you've read this far you should know better. The reason that the US has been unable to
uncover a shred of
evidence to link Al Qaeda to 9-11 is because....Al Qaeda didn't do it!
WHISTLEBLOWERS. WHISTLEBLOWERS. WHISTLEBLOWERS.
THE FBI AGENTS WHO TRIED TO PREVENT 9-11
The FBI's field agents are "the good guys". It's the ass kissing, spineless careerists at the top who have
corrupted the
agency. In the critical weeks and months leading up to that fateful day, numerous clues were picked up
by loyal FBI
field agents. Some of these agents were so alarmed at what they thought was an unfolding terror plot,
that they tried to
convince their superiors to investigate deeper. These agents were either ignored, threatened, or fired.
Each of these FBI agents thought that they were on the trail of an Arab terror plot and unless they've
read this paper,
they probably still believe so. We can forgive them their ignorance if they haven't realized yet that the
trail they were
on was not that of Arab terrorists, but rather Mossad agents impersonating Arab terrorists. (much more
on that later!)
The essential point is that these agents were on to something big that someone didn't want them to
digging into.
There is FBI Special Agent Robert Wright. The public interest law firm Judicial Watch is representing
247
agent Wright.
Wright claims that he was met with retaliation and threats from his bosses and from the Justice
Department who told
him they wanted his probes to go no further. 124 Wright maintains that if his investigation had been
allowed to
continue, the attacks could have been prevented.
There is FBI agent Coleen Rowley. The gutsy Rowley wrote a 13 page letter to FBI Director Robert
Mueller in which
she actually accuses the director of her own agency of "a subtle skewing of the facts". 125 Rowley's
letter also charged
that the agency refused to react to evidence of a pending terror plot. According to Rowley the FBI's
obstruction was so
blatant that her and some of her fellow agents jokingly speculated that key FBI personnel must have
been moles
working for Osama Bin laden! 126 Rowley’s main point of contention was the agency’s failure to go
after Zacharias
Moussoui, the "20th hijacker", even after his flight school instructor reported his suspicious behavior to
the FBI.
Moussoui you will recall was the French Algerian who couldn’t speak French to his flight school
instructor.
There is FBI agent Sibel Edmonds. Edmunds was an FBI wiretap translator. She claims that another FBI
translator was
working for the Mossad and that the Mossad also tried to recruit Edmonds to make phony translations
for the purpose
of misdirecting investigations. When agent Edmonds refused, the Mossad threatened her safety! 127
When she brought
these allegations to the attention of her superiors, she was fired for being "disruptive". The Washington
Post briefly
reported this story without mentioning the name of nation that tried to recruit Edmonds. But The Post
did reveal that
Edmonds and the other translator "trace their ethnicity" to this certain "Middle Eastern" country. 128
Agent Sibel
Edmunds is not an Arab. Edmonds is jewish. Therefore we know that the "Middle Eastern" nation which
the Post chose
not to name is Israel. (No big surprise there!) Sibel Edmonds deserves a lot of credit for defying the
Mossad and
blowing the whistle to her superiors. Instead, she was fired for her patriotic efforts, proving once again
that Zionists are
willing to hurt innocent jews.
There is FBI agent John M. Cole, program manager for FBI intelligence investigations covering India,
Pakistan, and
Afgahinstan. In the same Washington Post story about Edmunds, it was reported that Cole also wrote a
letter to FBI
chief Mueller warning him about lax security procedures in the hiring of translators. 129
Dedicated agents such as Wright, Rowley, Cole, Edmonds and others who have spoken anonymously,
had to be
stopped from going after "Muslim terrorists". If not so obstructed, they would in time come to discover
that they
weren’t really Al Qaeda terrorists!! Not only were investigations blocked before 9-11, but they continue
to be blocked
248
after 9-11. The cover up is so blatant that members of both the House and Senate Intelligence
committees complains
directly to CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft. The Los Angeles Times
reported:
"Lawmakers leading the investigation of intelligence failures surrounding the 9-11 attacks are
increasingly concerned
that the CIA and Justice department are actively impeding their efforts....The flare up centers on
obstacles
congressional investigators say the agencies have strewn in their path." 130
That's exactly what FBI agents Wright, Rowley, Edmunds, and Cole said happened to them when they
tried to
investigate before the attacks! By the way, did I mention that the FBI is under the jurisdiction of yet
another Zionist
named Michael Chertoff? Chertoff is the Director of the Criminal Division of the US Justice
Department. FBI chief
Robert Mueller has to answer to Chertoff. Perhaps that explains Mueller’s highly pathetic, and highly
revealing, speech
before the Anti Defamation League’s 24th Annual National Leadership Conference held in May of 2002:
"I have long admired and respected the work of ADL, and I appreciate your longstanding support of the
FBI. I know
that under my predecessor, Louis Freeh, this partnership reached new heights. . . . I am absolutely
committed to
building on that relationship. We in the FBI tremendously value your perspectives and your partnership.
Your insights
and research into extremism are particularly helpful to us, shedding light on the changing nature of the
terrorist threats
facing America. Your support of hate crime and terrorist investigations, which are now front and center
in the work of
the FBI, is essential to us. And the training and education you provide for the FBI and for law
enforcement have never
been more relevant. That includes the conference on extremist and terrorist threats you are sponsoring
later this month
at the FBI Academy." 131
Just shoot me now! The FBI is in "partnership" with the Zionist ADL and relies upon this criminal smear
group for
"insights and research", and "education and training!" Didn’t anyone ever tell FBI chief Mueller that
when the FBI
raided the California offices of the ADL in 1993, they found that the ADL had computerized files on
nearly 10,000
people across the country, and that more than 75 percent of the information had been illegally obtained
from police,
FBI files and state drivers license data banks? 132 Isn’t Mueller aware that the San Francisco Superior
Court awarded
$150,000 in court judgments against the Anti-Defamation League in connection with this FBI bust? 133
What other group in America could get away with not only stealing FBI files (a Federal offense!!!), but
then becoming
"partners" with the FBI? So why would FBI Director Mueller disregard the fact that the ADL is a
criminal group that
was caught spying on US citizens by his own FBI? Why does Mueller ignore the "insights" of his own
agents while
249
thanking the criminal ADL for it’s "advice"? It’s because Mueller and his kind are empty, career minded
"yes men"
who understand that it doesn’t pay to defy the Zionist Mafia. Ass-kissers like Mueller get promoted.
Honest agents like
Wright, Rowley, Edmonds and Cole go nowhere fast!
THE ANTHRAX LETTERS: ANOTHER ANTI-ARAB FRAME UP
On October 3, 2001, an Egyptian-American scientist named Dr. Ayaad Assaad sat terrified in a vault-like
interrogation
room at an FBI office in Washington D.C. It was not yet known that a pair of letters containing deadly
anthrax had
been mailed to NBC Newsman Tom Brokaw and US Senator Tom Daschle. Five people would die as a
result of the
anthrax mailings which had been mailed from New Jersey. Billions of pieces of mail were delayed,
costing the US Post
Office to suffer huge losses. The news media ran nothing but anthrax stories night and day. Politicians
and
commentators speculated that Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein were behind the letters. Why was
the FBI
questioning Asaad?
Before the anthrax murders were committed, someone had sent the FBI an anonymous letter accusing
Dr. Assaad of
being a bio-terrorist with a grudge against the United States. 134 The letter was sent on September 25th
- before the
first anthrax case was even diagnosed. The FBI agents soon were convinced that the anonymous letter
was a hoax and a
frame up attempt. Assaad was cleared of suspicion and released. Assaad later told The Hartford Courant
of
Connecticut:
'"I was so angry when I read the letter, I broke out in tears. Whoever this person is knew in advance
what was going to
happen and created a suitable, well-fitted scapegoat for this action. You do not need to be a Nobel
Laureate to put two
and two together." 135
If we find out who would have wanted to frame Dr. Assad in particular, and Arabs in general, we will
likely find out
who was behind the anthrax murders. That the wording of the anthrax letters was contrived in such a
manner as to
frame Arabs/Muslims is so self evident that even a mentally retarded child could see through it. Here is
the wording of
the Daschle letter:
"You cannot stop us. We have this anthrax. You die now. Are you afraid? Death to America. Death to
Israel. Allah is
great." 136
and the Brokaw letter:
"This is next. Take Penacilin now. Death to America. Death to Israel. Allah is great." 137
Give me a break!!!!!!!!! Ask yourself: Who would want to frame Arabs? Who would want to link the
interests of the
US and the interests of Israel in the obvious way these ridiculous letters attempt to? Remember the
250
Lavon Affair?
Remember the USS Liberty? Remember the dancing Israelis? Remember Netanyahu's saying 9-11 was
good for USIsraeli
relations?
A good place to start searching would be the US bio-weapons lab at Fort Detrick, MD. The Ames strain
of anthrax has
in fact been traced to Fort Detrick, where Assaad once worked until he was laid off in 1997. After he
was let go from
Fort Detrick, Assaad filed a federal discrimination suit based upon the brutal abuse and harassment that
he had endured
from some highly suspicious co-workers. In 1991, Assaad found an 8 page poem in his mailbox which
became a
courtroom exhibit. The poem had 235 lines, many of them lewd and sexually explicit, mocking Assaad.
Along with the
poem, the perpetrators left Assaad a rubber camel with a large penis attached to it! 138 This was an
obvious attempt to
mock Assaad’s Arab ethnicity. Assaad said that when he brought the poem to the attention of his
supervisor, Col.
David Franz, Franz kicked him out of his office! 139 Now these weren’t immature college kids doing
this. This
outrageous emotional abuse was carried out by highly trained scientists who obviously wanted Aassad
out.
One of the scientists known to have been a leader in the horrible attacks on Dr. Assaad was Dr. Lt. Col.
Philip Zack.
Philip Zack was to "voluntarily" leave Fort Detrick shortly after Assaad brought Zack’s poem and camel
to the
attention of his supervisors. 140 Strike one on Dr. Zack!
In an indirectly related matter, another Fort Detrick researcher, Dr. Mary Beth Downs told army
investigators that on
several occasions in January and February of 1992, she had come to work several times to discover that
someone had
been conducting anthrax research after hours. 141 Who could that person have been? Documents from
that 1992
inquiry confirm that an unauthorized person was observed on a surveillance camera being let into the lab
at 8:40 PM on
January 23, 1992. Who was this unauthorized person caught sneaking into the bio-weapons lab, during
the same time
period that anthrax research was being done after hours? None other than Lt. Col. Philip Zack! 142 The
same Zack who
was forced to resign a year earlier because of his horrible abuse of Dr. Assaad. Strike two on Dr. Zack!
Why would Dr. Zack and others have such an animosity towards Dr. Assaad? What would motivate him
to help write a
235 line hate poem? What motive would he have to frame Arabs for the deadly anthrax murders? Well,
some research
into the name "Zack" reveals that it is a fairly common jewish surname, derived from the Old Testament
"Zacharias".
Dr. Zack is jewish, and given his obvious, fanatical hatred of Arabs - we can safely deduce that he is a
hard core
Zionist. Strike three on Dr. Zack!
All of the above is public information. Assaad's 1990's legal proceedings, Dr. Down's testimony, the
251
surveillance video
of Zack sneaking into Fort Detrick one year after he had "resigned"- it's all there. The Hartford Courant
exposed all of
these facts 143 as did the Toronto Globe and Mail, 144 the Seattle Times, 145 and other publications.
Just the facts
contained in Hartford Courant story alone should be enough to at least indict Philip Zack. So why didn't
we see Dr.
Zack's face on our TV screens? Why hasn’t Dr. Zack been given a lie detector test? What forces in the
media and the
government are protecting Zack from being exposed as the logical prime suspect?
The plot thickens (and sickens) even more. It is not my intent to smear, defame, or offend jewish people
here. But to
not mention the ethnicity of certain players in this fantastic drama would be like writing an expose on the
Italian Mafia
without mentioning that it's major players are Italians. Remember, some of the Zionists’ harshest critics
are themselves
jewish.
Dr. Assaad had been cleared and Dr. Zack was coming under a small amount of media and FBI
suspicion. Enter, from
stage left, one Barbara Rosenberg, a jewish environmentalist professor and political activist with no
expertise in biowarfare.
146
Rosenberg suddenly went public with the claim that she knew who the anthrax killer was. 147 She was
supported in
this effort by another Zionist New York Times journalist named Nicholas D. Kristof, who openly called
for the arrest
of Hatfill! 148
Quietly and behind the scenes, Rosenberg began directing investigators towards an American scientist
named
Dr.Stephen Hatfill (and therefore away from Dr. Zack). The Washington Post confirmed that it was
Rosenberg who
helped put authorities on the trail of the innocent Dr. Hatfill. 149
The name of Hatfill trickled forth from the news media. In a matter of weeks, the trickle became a media
flood. Dr.
Hatfill became a household name. Hatfill called a news conference to protest his innocence. There is not
a shred of
evidence against him and he passed an FBI lie detector test. 150 But the Zionist controlled media lynch
mob, led by the
evil Rosenberg and the yellow journalist Kristoff, continued to pursue and harass Hatfill. Dr.Hatfill may
never be
imprisoned, but his life and career have been destroyed by these false allegations and the media hype. Lt.
Col. Zack is
off the hook.
What these mad Zionist scientists and their media brethren have done to Dr. Assaad and Dr. Hatfill is
monstrous
beyond belief. It is clear that these anthrax letters were first intended to be an anti-Arab frame up with
Assaad meant to
take the blame. When that didn't work, these fanatical Zionists (who always stick together like glue!) put
the media and
the FBI on poor Dr. Hatfill‘s back, and wrecked his career and reputation in the process. Why hasn’t Dr.
252
Zack been
given an FBI lie detector test???? Ask FBI boss and ADL’ "partner" ; Robert Mueller!
HUNDREDS OF MOSSAD AGENTS RUNNING WILD IN AMERICA!
We talked at length about the five Israeli "movers", i.e. Mossad agents, who were arrested and placed in
solitary
confinement after they were caught celebrating the 9-11 horror show. We also reviewed how the Israeli
owner of Urban
Moving Systems - Dominick Suter - then suddenly abandoned his "moving company" and fled for Israel
on 9-14. But
there were still more Israeli "movers" in America whose actions raise serious suspicions.
In October of 2001, three more Israeli "movers" were stopped in Plymouth, PA because of their
suspicious behavior.
These "movers" were seen dumping furniture near a restaurant dumpster! When the restaurant manager
approached the
driver, a "Middle Eastern" man later identified as Moshe Elmakias fled the scene. 151 The manager
made note of the
truck's sign which read "Moving Systems Incorporated" and called the police. When the police spotted
the truck, two
other Israelis - Ayelet Reisler and Ron Katar began acting suspiciously.152 The Plymouth police
searched the truck and
found a video. The Israelis were taken into custody and the video tape was played at the police station.
The video
revealed footage of Chicago with zoomed in shots of the Sears Tower. 153 The police quickly alerted
the FBI and it
was also discovered that the Israelis had falsified travel logs and phony paperwork on them.154 They
were also unable
to provide a name and telephone number for the customer that they claimed to have been working for.
These Israelis
were up to some sort of dirty business, and you can be sure it had nothing to do with moving furniture.
On October 10, 2001, CNN made a brief mention of a foiled terrorist bomb plot in the Mexican
Parliament building.
They promised to bring any further developments of this story to their viewers, but the incident was
never heard of
again in America. But the story appeared in bold headlines on the front page of the major Mexican
newspapers 155 and
was also posted on the official website of the Mexican Justice Department. 156 Two terrorist suspects
were
apprehended in the Mexican Chamber of Deputies. Caught red-handed, they had in their possession a
high powered
gun, nine hand grenades, and C-4 plastic explosives (great stuff for demolishing buildings!) 157 Within
days, this
blockbuster story not only disappeared from the Mexican press, but the terrorists were released and
deported! The two
terrorists were Salvador Gerson Sunke and Sar ben Zui. Can you guess what their ethnicity was? Gerson
Sunke was a
Mexican jew and Zui was a colonel with the Israeli special forces. 158 Can you say "Mossad?" The story
in El Diario
de Mexico went on to reveal that the Zionist terrorists had fake Pakistani passports on them. 159 Can
you say "false
flag operation?" The probable motive of this particular botched terrorist operation was to involve oil rich
253
Mexico in the
"War on Terrorism" (The War on Israel's enemies would be a more accurate description). Mexico is no
military power,
but the psychological trauma of an "Arab" attack on Mexico would surely have induced Mexico to
provide unlimited
cheap oil to her American "protector". With cheap oil flowing to America at rock bottom prices from
Mexico, the US
could better afford to break off relations with the oil rich Arabs in general and Saudi Arabia in particular.
That‘s why
the conspiracy chose so many Saudi identities to steal for the 9-11 operation..
In November of 2001, 6 more suspicious Israelis were detained in an unspecified mid-eastern state. They
had in their
possession box cutters, oil pipeline plans, and nuclear power plant plans. 160 The local police called in
the Feds and
Immigration officials took over the scene and released the men without calling the FBI. The Jerusalem
Post, 161 the
Miami Herald, 162 and the Times of London 163 all carried this amazing story and all revealed how
furious FBI
officials were that these suspects with nuclear power plant plans were allowed to go free. Of course, the
corruption
riddled FBI would only have caved into Zionist pressure from the Justice Department’s Criminal
Division boss,
Michael Chertoff, and also from the ADL’s "partner", FBI boss Robert Mueller - who would no doubt
have found a
way to release those Israeli terror suspects too.
In December of 2001, the Los Angeles Times published the story of how two jewish terrorists were
arrested by the FBI
for plotting to blow up the office of US Congressman of Arab descent - Darrell Issa (R-CA), and also a
California
mosque. 164 Irv Rubin and Earl Kruger of the radical Zionist Jewish Defense League (JDL) were
charged with
conspiracy to destroy a building by means of explosives. This story got brief national coverage but
quickly disappeared
too. These Zionists sure love blowing up buildings and killing innocent people don't they?
In May of 2002, yet another moving van was pulled over in Oak Harbor, Washington near the Whidbey
Island Naval
Air Station. Fox News reported that the van was pulled over for speeding shortly after midnight. The
passengers told
the police they were delivering furniture, but because it was so late at night, the police weren't buying
the story. A
bomb sniffing dog was brought in and the dog detected the presence of TNT and RDX plastic explosives
in the truck
(great stuff for demolishing buildings!) Both Fox News 165 and the Ha'aretz newspaper of Israel 166
Reported that the
two "movers" were Israelis.
According to FOX news, throughout late 2000 and 2001, a total of 200 Israeli spies were arrested. 167
It was the
largest spy ring to be uncovered in the history of the US. The Washington Post also reported that some
of these Israelis
were arrested in connection with the 9-11 investigation. 168 US. Carl Cameron of FOX News Channel
254
did a excellent
four part, nationally televised, series of investigations into this blockbuster scandal. But FOX pulled the
investigative
series after Zionist groups complained to FOX executives. FOX even went so far as to remove the
written transcripts of
the series from its website! In it’s place was posted a chilling, Orwellian message which reads: "This
story no longer
exists." 169 Fortunately for the sake of history, the FOX transcripts were copied onto to many other
websites and all
four parts are available for your review. (see footnotes.)
The FOX series and other mainstream news media sources revealed that many of these Israelis were
army veterans with
electronics and explosives expertise. Many of them failed lie detector tests. FBI agents told FOX that
some of their past
investigations were compromised because suspects had been tipped off by Israeli wiretapping specialists.
It was
discovered that Israeli companies such as Comverse and Amdocs have the capability to tap American
telephones (great
for blackmailing all those wife-cheating politicians!) FBI agents also told FOX they believed the Israelis
had advance
knowledge of the 9-11 attacks. (which certainly would explain why no Israelis died in the WTC) Still
another US
official informed FOX that some of the detained Israelis actually had links to 9-11, but he refused to
describe the nature
of those links. The FBI official told FOX's Carl Cameron:
"Evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is classified. I cannot tell you about the evidence that has been
gathered. It is
classified information." 170
Then there was that small army of Israeli "art students" who were arrested for trying to sneak into
secured US Federal
buildings and staking out 36 Department of Defense sites. Some of these suspicious "art students" even
showed up at
the homes of Federal employees. 171 Ron Hatchett, a Department of Defense analyst, told Channel 11,
KHOU news in
Houston that he believed that the "art students" were gathering intelligence for future attacks. Here’s an
excerpt from
the October 1, 2001 KHOU investigative report by Anna Werner:
"Could federal buildings in Houston and other cities be under surveillance by foreign groups? That's
what some experts
are asking after federal law enforcement and security officials - nationally and in Houston - described for
the 11 News
Defenders a curious pattern of behavior by a group of people claiming to be Israeli art students."
"Hatchett says they could be doing what he would be doing if he were a terrorist, sizing up the situation:
"We need to
know what are the entrances to this particular building. We need to know what are the surveillance
cameras that are
operating. We need to know how many guards are at this operation, when do they take breaks?" Says
Hatchett: "This is
not a bunch of kids selling artwork."
"A former Defense Department analyst, Hatchett believes groups may be gathering intelligence for
255
possible future
attacks. "Some organization, thinking in terms of a potential retaliation against the U.S. government
could be scouting
out potential targets and looking for targets that would be vulnerable."
And a source tells the Defenders of another federal memo, stating that besides Houston and Dallas, the
same thing has
happened at sites in New York, Florida, and six other states, and even more worrisome, at 36 sensitive
Department of
Defense sites. "One defense site you can explain," says Hatchett, "well that was just a serendipitous, …
….. Thirty-six?
That's a pattern." 172
A Federal memo stated that these art students may have had ties to an "Islamic terror group". 173
Remember the
bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946, and how the "Arab terrorists" were actually Irgun terrorists?
Remember the
Zionist terrorists caught in Mexico with Arab passports? remember the official motto of the Mossad - By
Way of
Deception Thou Shalt Do War. Are you getting the picture? Can you say "false flag operations."?
Before his excellent work was silenced, FOX's Cameron reported this amazing bit of information:
"Investigators within the DEA, INS, and FBI have all told FOX News that to pursue or even suggest
Israeli spying is
considered career suicide ." 174 (emphasis added)
Did you catch that? If an investigator dares to mention Israeli spying, he has committed career suicide!
And if a
journalist like FOX's Cameron dares to bring this scandal to light, he is told to shut his mouth. If they
persist, they may
even be called "anti-Semitic" - a label which has served as the kiss of death for many a journalistic and
political career.
This means that Zionist Mafia can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, and however it wants -
including
orchestrating, financing, executing, and covering up the true story of events in the Middle East, the 9-11
massacre, and
the ensuing "War on Terrorism" (war on Israel's enemies).
Now do you remember the Mossad's "warning" about the 200 "Al-Qaeda terrorists" said to have been
preparing major
attacks in the US? 175 At the time of this writing, we are one year into the largest investigation in
American history,
and not one of these 200 "terrorists" has yet to be uncovered. 176 But 200 Israeli spies were uncovered,
among them
many military members, electronics experts, wiretapping and phone tapping specialists, and explosives
experts with the
skill to bring down tall buildings. 177 Logic and common sense leads to the conclusion that the "200 Al
Qaeda
terrorists" were in reality, 200 Zionist terrorists sent to frame the Arabs for terrorist attacks and drag
America into a
war. History repeats itself. But who will teach this history to the American people when the Zionists
control the
information industry? The Zionist Mafia and their ass-kissing careerist henchmen in media, government,
academia, and
business have all of the bases covered.
256
ZIONISTS WANT WORLD WAR III
In January of 2001, 9 months before the 9-11 attacks, a well known economist and political figure with
worldwide
intelligence connections issued the following prediction:
"A new Middle East war of the general type and implications indicated, will occur if certain specified
incidents
materialize. It will occur only if the combination of the Israeli government and certain Anglo-American
circles wish to
have it occur. If they should wish it to occur, the incidents to "explain" that occurrence, will be
arranged." "Contrary to
widespread childish opinion, most of the important things that happen in the world, happen because
powerful forces
intend them to happen, not because of some so-called "sociological" or other statistical coincidence of
the types
reported for the popular edification of the easily deluded. A new Middle East war, bigger than any yet
seen, is
inevitable under presently reigning global influences." 178
The man who made that prediction is the perpetual presidential "wannabe" Lyndon Larouche. Now
Larouche may be a
cult like figure with some really weird interpretations of history, but his intelligence contacts are
legitimate and many
of his political and economic forecasts have been accurate in the past. Considering all the history and
recent events
reviewed in this paper, and the logical conclusions which they lead us to, the above prediction was "right
on the
money."
The Zionists (and also Anglo-American Internationalist interests) do not conceal their desire for World
War III, with
American troops doing dying. They pulled off 9-11, turned us into Arab hating fanatics, put an American
flag in our
hands, and are marching us off to die for Zionism. Just read what Ra'anan Gissin - a senior adviser to
and spokesman
for Ariel "the Butcher" Sharon - said in an interview with the Arizona Daily Star in April of 2002:
"The terror attacks on Sept. 11 and extreme turmoil in the Middle East point to one thing - World War
III. We've been
fighting a war for the past 18 months, which is the harbinger of World War III. The world is going to
fight, whether
they like it or not. I'm sure." 179
Here's another warmongering, inflammatory quote from Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, urging
the US to attack
Iraq:
Attacking Iraq now would be "quite dangerous, but postponing it would be more dangerous. The
problem today is not
if but when." 180
And here's another warmongering quote from an editorial that former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamim
Netanyahu
wrote for the New York Post headlined "Today We are All Americans":
"What is at stake today is nothing less than the survival of civilization.... I have absolute confidence that
if we, the
257
citizens of the free world, led by President Bush, will marshal the enormous reserves of power at our
disposal, harness
the steely resolve of a free people and mobilize our collective will to eradicate this evil from the face of
the earth.... The
international terrorist network is thus based on regimes - Iran, Iraq, Syria, Taleban Afghanistan, Yasser
Arafat's
Palestinian Authority and several other Arab regimes such as the Sudan. For the bin Ladens of the world,
Israel is
merely a sideshow. America is the target" 181
Note the ominous similarity between Netanyahu's lies and the first words that Sivan Kurzberg - one of
the dancing
Israeli "movers" - spoke to arresting police officer on 9-11:
"We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your
problem." 182
Recall Netanyahu's September 11 comment about the attacks being "very good" for Israeli-US relations.
The title of the
New York Times article which carried that comment was: "Spilled Blood is Seen as Bond That Draws 2
Nations
Closer." 183
Ariel Sharon used the same "linking tactic" in a speech before the notoriously defamatory, Zionist Anti-
Defamation
League:
"There is a moral equivalency and direct connection between America's continuous operations against al
Qaeda in
Afghanistan and any other Israel Defense Forces operation to defeat terrorism," Sharon said in a speech
Monday to the
Anti-Defamation League. "They are acts of self-defense against the same forces of evil and darkness
bent on destroying
civilized society." 184
Notice how Sharon, Netanyahu, the Israeli "movers", and the totally Zionist dominated New York Times
and New
York Post all used the same strategic tactic of linking the interests of the US with the interests of Israel.
The same ploy
was utilized in the anthrax letters: "Death to America! Death to Israel!". Do see how these evil Zionist
bastards play the
game? They turn their enemies into our enemies while pretending to be our "allies". They laugh and
celebrate as 1000's
of innocent Americans are burned and crushed to death. And when someone dares to shine the light of
truth upon them,
they label you an "anti-Semite" Can you not see that we've been played for fools?
Behold this bit of bold hypocrisy by American Jewish Congress President Jack Rosen:
"I don't think Palestinians celebrating the death of thousands of Americans should go unchallenged." 185
Is that so Jack? What about the Israelis who celebrated the death of thousands of Americans. Why
haven't you
challenged that?
Now read this quote from the Prince of Darkness himself - Pentagon big shot and Zionist fanatic
Richard Perle:
"Neither the president nor the British Prime Minister will be deflected by Saddam's diplomatic charm
offensive, the
feckless moralizing of 'peace' lobbies or the unsolicited advice of retired generals." 186
258
Perle not only lays down the policy line for Bush, but apparently for British Prime Minister Tony Blair as
well. And
note how casually he dismissed the sound advice of those retired generals who warned that a war
against Iraq was
unnecessary. But what does Perle care! His kids won't be dying. As always, it will only be the children of
the flag
waving masses, which Perle and his Zionist brothers and sisters see as nothing more than cannon fodder
for Zionism,
who will do the fighting and killing. What threat did Iraq ever pose to the US? None! Iraq, and other
Arab nations, are
to be crushed so that Israel can have a freer hand to expand in the Middle East.
It appears that George Bush goes along with the wishes of these Zionist gangsters for his own political
protection
and/or advancement, but it is unclear as to what extant he is truly in agreement with them. Bush and
Cheney may even
be under a some form of blackmail. But they also represent oil interests and the Caspian Sea area is rich
in oil and
minerals. Plans have been in the works for years to build pipelines to take the oil from the Caspian,
through
Afghanistan and Pakistan, and then out to sea. The "oil angle" may be a secondary contributing factor
behind the "War
on Terrorism", one much nearer to the hearts of Bush/Cheney than the cause of Zionism.
It is clear from just the well publicized information that the president had at least some type of
knowledge that a major
attack was coming. Do you remember Bush’s strange behavior when he was first told of the attacks? He
was reading to
a group of Florida school children when his Chief of Staff Andy Card whispered the news of the second
tower being hit
in New York. Instead of just calmly excusing himself and apologizing to the kids for having to leave
suddenly, Bush
quickly shifted his eyes at the camera, turned somber, and then returned to reading for another 15
minutes! 187
Our major cities were under attack, 1000’s of his countrymen were burning or jumping to their deaths
on live TV, and
more planes were still unaccounted for. Yet Bush just sat there with a stupid look on his face and then
went back to
reading a story about a goat. Is this the reaction of a man who was truly surprised by these horrible
attacks? Or is this
more indicative of the reaction of a guilty person who, like FDR just before Pearl Harbor, was expecting
an attack and
therefore was not surprised? 188
There is one more interesting coincidence worth mentioning. During the whole time that these terror
attacks were
expected, Bush was out of Washington DC on what the media had dubbed "the longest vacation in
presidential
history." Time Magazine of August 5, 2002 explains:
"Getting ready for a vacation can be so hectic. It certainly was for George W. Bush last week. While
Laura Bush left
the White House early to get the ranch in Crawford, Texas, ready for a month-long holiday (one of the
longest in
259
presidential history), the President rushed through some last-minute errands." 189
Bush was in Texas for the entire month of August, returned to the White House briefly, then left again
and ended up in
a Florida classroom on September 11. (What a tough job eh?) Is this of any significance? Well, I don’t
know about you,
but if I had the kind of intelligence network and advance warning that we know certain people had- and
surely a sitting
US president would also have had- I would not have been in Washington DC on 9-11 either!
There are many politicians and journalists in America who "carry the Zionist’s water" for them only
because they are
careerists who understand very well from whence their bread is buttered. My suspicion is that if Bush
doesn't deliver a
war against Iraq, and then WW III against other Arab states, Joe Lieberman may be installed as
president in 2004, with
McCain running as an independent to draw votes away from Bush. Will Bush, like Wilson in WW I, and
FDR in WW
II, go all the way and deliver WW III to the Zionist Mafia? At the time of this writing it does appear that
way. But if
Bush should hesitate (like his father did in 1991) to "go all the way", the Zionist Mafia will try to replace
him with
Lieberman in 2004.
Iraq knows who is behind the planned attack on their nation. In an interview with CBS’s Dan Rather,
Aziz accused the
Zionists:
"This war which the Bush government is a planning does not serve the basic interest in the long run of
the American
nation. It serves the imperialistic interest of Israel and the Zionist groups who have now a great say in
the American
policy." 190
How sadly ironic it is that the Arabs know that the Zionist Mafia dominates America but the American
people are
oblivious to it. But who will tell the American people if the Zionists dominate the media too?
"THE ATTACKS WILL BE GOOD FOR US-ISRAEL RELATIONS."
CLOSING ARGUMENT
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we have established that the political force of Zionism is a dangerous
supremacist
movement, and that its leaders have always placed the interests of International Zionism ahead of the
interests of their
respective nations. We have demonstrated that this Zionist Mafia will send unsuspecting Americans to
war to fight for
their interests. We have seen how Germany and Great Britain were selfishly used for their purposes. We
have
demonstrated the role played by Zionism in helping bring about some of the 20th centuries greatest
disasters; such as
World Wars I and II and the Treaty of Versailles. We have learned about Zionist massacres of unarmed
Arab civilians
and Zionist terrorism designed to frame Arabs and poison relations between the US and Israel’s Arab
enemies. We
learned about the awesome Zionist power structure that exists in America, covering the Congress, the
pentagon, the
260
mass media and more. We have established that the Zionists, through their media monopoly, have the
ability to cover
up and conceal some of the most amazing stories of both the past and present.
We have established a primary motive - to turn the US into a nation of Arab haters and Israel lovers
eager to go to war
against Zionism’s Arab enemies.
We have established a secondary motive - to brutally crush the Palestinian resistance under the cover of
a major US
war on terrorism. Sharon’s tanks were unleashed on September 12 in a major escalation of the Israeli-
Palestinian
conflict. Because of the 9-11 attacks, few noticed and still fewer even cared.
We have established numerous precedents for these type of "false-flag" operations as well as cases of
Israeli agents
impersonating Arab terrorists (Lavon Affair, USS Liberty, Mossad agents caught with Arab passports,
Muslim
impersonators caught in India etc.)
We have established that the Zionists have the logistical capability and the opportunity to orchestrate
such an operation
- (best intelligence service in the world, key positions of power at the Pentagon and in US intelligence,
experts with
explosives, access to WTC, access to Logan Airport and US Air and American Air, unlimited supply of
money, able to
thwart investigators with phony wire translations and US moles, etc)
We have established that the Zionist controlled media has the ability to cover-up the facts contained in
this paper, even
after the stories had initially penetrated their own media screens. We have established that the Zionists
have the power
to ruin the careers of US Congressmen,
Senators, presidents, law enforcement officials, and journalists. Conversely, they also have the power to
advance the
careers of those who serve their interests. We have seen that they have the ability to block investigations
as well
misdirect and thwart existing investigations. We have established that the Zionists were the beneficiaries
of the 9-11
attacks whereas the Arabs have been hurt greatly by the 9-11 attacks.
We have exposed numerous lies linking Arabs to 9-11. We have established how evidence against Arabs
was planted
and contrived in order to misdirect investigators (wording of anthrax letters, phony passports, stolen
passports, Korans
and Arab flight manuals left conveniently behind for FBI filed agents to find in cars and "forgotten"
suitcases, Atta‘a
passport surviving the blast and floating down to earth, etc). We have established that 7 of the 19
hijackers are alive
and well. We have established that a small army of Mossad agents was caught planning terror acts in
America and
Mexico. We have seen how anxious the Zionists are to use 9-11 as a pretext to crush the Palestinian
resistance and to
have the US attack Iraq and other nations. We have established all of this and so much more. In
addition, there is a
plethora of even more damning facts which, in the interests of time and space, weren’t even included in
261
this paper!
The only logical conclusion that a reasonable person can arrive at is this: The 9-11 attacks, the anthrax
murders, and
numerous other foiled terror plots, were planned, orchestrated, financed, carried out, and covered up by
the forces of
international Zionism. What other logical explanation can there be? As incredible as this may seem, what
other
conclusion is there that can so neatly tie up all of the "loose ends" and mysteries related to 9-11? This is
the only
scenario into which the many pieces of the 9-11 jig-saw puzzle snap snugly together to reveal a clear
image. Now
compare this to the official explanation of 9-11, which requires us to force, bend, recreate, and
manipulate puzzle
pieces.
Even in the face of this mountain of facts, there will still be those who will go into denial and casually
dismiss this
whole case as just another silly "conspiracy theory". But the funniest "conspiracy theory" of all is the
theory that some
Saudi caveman and his "network" of Arab students managed to elude US investigators and pull off the
most
sophisticated intelligence operation in world history. You can continue to believe that fairy tale if it
makes you sleep
better at night (and if your sense of credulity can stand the burden!) Or, you can muster the moral and
intellectual
courage to free your mind from Zionist bondage and face the ugly truth for what it is. You can join the
"extremists" and
make a commitment to share the horrible truth with others, or, you can smirk, roll your eyes, and "poohpooh"
everything you’ve just read. Go back to your controlled TV news, pretend this problem doesn’t exist,
and let Messrs.
Rather, Brokaw, and Jennings do your thinking for you while the world goes to hell in a Zionist handbasket..
The
choice is yours. History and posterity will judge your actions accordingly. To borrow a line from the
Maximus, hero of
the film Gladiator: "What we do in life, echoes in eternity."
A CLOSING STATEMENT FROM THE FATHER OF OUR COUNTRY
"A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the
favorite nation,
facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists,
and infusing
into one nation the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars
of the latter
without justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others
which is apt
doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have
been retained,
and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges
are withheld.
And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens who devote themselves to the favorite nation,
facility to betray
262
or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding,
with the
appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable
zeal for
public good, the foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation."
What Is Money?
The Greatest Robbery of America
The History of America’s Money System
Change the Money, Change the Country
THIS IS THE GREATEST SCAM IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE!!
The Federal Reserve Bank only creates the Principal - not the usury or interest that it lends to the U.S.
government.
Therefore the usury can NEVER be repaid and the end result is foreclosure and bankruptcy.
In 1765, the Bank of England demanded that the American Colonies pay taxes in British specie or coins
which the
people did not possess. If they had borrowed from the Bank of England to pay the tax, the end result
would have been
the same: foreclosure and bankruptcy with the Bank owning everything!!
The "Federal" Reserve Bank loans the U.S. government their own "money" at usury or interest!!
The perfect monetary system of free coinage of silver and gold was destroyed in 1873………………
…...
WHERE THERE'S WAR THERE'S MONEY
War uses up more materials more quickly than most anything else on earth.
In war expensive equipment doesn't wear out slowly, it gets blown up. (It's interesting to note that
during the 119 year
period from the founding of the Bank of England to Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo, England had been at
war for 56
years, while the rest of the time preparing for it. In the process the money changers had been getting
rich.)
So there it was, the newly formed Federal Reserve poised to produce any money the U.S. Government
might need from
thin air with each dollar standing to make a healthy interest. Same with Iraq War!
On June 10, 1932, Louis T. McFadden, chair of the House Banking and Currency Committee, said in an
address to the
Congress: "We have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I
refer to the Federal
Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks ……. Two attempts were made to take Mr. McFadden's
life, including
an attempted poisoning at a Congressional cafeteria. He passed away in 1935 under circumstances
which many still
contend are suspicious
Paul Warburg
"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and
commerce."(Paul
Warburg, drafter of the Federal Reserve Act)
Mayer Amschel
"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes its laws."(Mayer
Amschel
THE REAL REASON WE ARE AT WAR!
TIME MAGAZINE NOVEMBER 13, 2000 - Page 34
263
FOREIGN EXCHANGE
'SADDAM TURNS HIS BACK ON GREENBACKS'
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/iraq_reason.htm
The Bankruptcy of the United States
http://www.apfn.net/DOC-100_bankruptcy.htm
A Federal Reserve Note is a debt obligation of the
federal United States government, not "money?' The federal United States government and the U.S.
Congress were not
and have never been authorized by the Constitution for the united states of America to issue currency of
any kind, but
only lawful money, -gold and silver coin.
http://www.apfn.net/DOC-100_bankruptcy.htm
America's Total Debt Report
$ 40 Trillion - - and soaring
http://mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/debt-nat.htm
The FED creates money from nothing, and loans it back to us through banks, and charges interest on
our currency. The
FED also buys Government debt with money printed on a printing press and charges U.S. taxpayers
interest……
Government debt ("public debt", "national debt") is money owed by government, at any level (central
government or
federal government, municipal government, local government).
As the government represents the people, government debt can be seen as an indirect debt of the tax
payers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_debt
Executive Order 11110
Amendment of Executive Order No. 10289, as amended, relating to the performance of certain
functions affecting the
Department of the Treasury
Signed: June 4, 1963
Federal Register page and date: 28 FR 5605; June 7, 1963
Amends: EO 10289, September 17, 1951
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/1963-kennedy.html
A PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE ORDER IS LAW:
http://www.apfn.org/money/law.htm
FEDERAL RESERVE ~ THE ENEMY OF AMERICA
Federal Reserve It is not federal, and it does not have any reserves.
Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. 1913 - "When the President signs this bill, the invisible government of the
monetary power
will be legalized....the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency
bill."
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve2.htm
ANDREW JACKSON (1828 - 1836)
When the American congress voted to renew the charter of The Second Bank of The United States,
Jackson responded
by using his veto to prevent the renewal bill from passing. His response gives us an interesting insight.
"It is not our
own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our government. More than eight millions of the
stock of this bank
are held by foreigners... is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature
264
has so little to
bind it to our country?... Controlling our currency, receiving our public moneys, and holding thousands
of our citizens
in dependence... would be more formidable and dangerous than a military power of the enemy. If
government would
confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favour alike on the high and
the low, the rich
and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. In the act before me there seems to be a wide and
unnecessary
departure from these just principles."
How U.S. Gold Reserves Were Stolen
In July, 1927, the directors of the Bank of England [Montagu Norman], the New York Federal Reserve
Bank
[Benjamin Strong], and the German Reichsbank [Hjalmar Schacht], met to plan a way to get the gold
moved out of the
United States, and it was this movement of gold which helped trigger the depression. By 1928, nearly
$500 million in
gold was transferred to Europe.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve2.htm
The real owners of the Federal Reserve and the Federal Reserve System are:
a) Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin;
b) Lazard Brothers Bank of Paris;
c) Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy;
d) Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam;
e) Lehman Brothers Bank of New York;
f) Kuhn, Loeb Bank of New York;
g) Chase Manhattan Bank of New York;
h) Goldman Sachs Bank of New York; and
i) Approximately three hundred people, known to each other and/or relations of the "owners," who hold
stock in the
Federal Reserve System. They comprise an interlocking, International Banking Cartel of wealth beyond
comprehension.
he Federal Reserve meet behind closed doors and has more power than the Congress and President of
the United States;
and to top that off, these men who control America through their financial manipulation are not even
responsible to the
public nor to Congress and has repeatedly shown that it is under the control of the International Jewish
Bankers, by
raising the discount rate (a deliberate act to destroy small business) they have been able to bring about
the depressions
which have devastated the American Farmer and Ranchers since the time this Evil Satanic Act was
passed.
http://100777.com/doc/17
President Kennedy opposed the "Federal" Reserve Bank.
President Kennedy opposed the corrupt "Federal" Reserve System in 1963 and it cost him his life.
265
Like Lincoln, President Kennedy opposed the banksters and it cost him his life.
On June 4, 1963, a little known attempt was made to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to
loan money to the
government at interest. On that day President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order No. 11110 that
returned to the
U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve. Mr.
Kennedy's order gave
the Treasury the power "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver
dollars in the
Treasury." This meant that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could
introduce new
money into circulation. In all, Kennedy brought nearly $4.3 billion in U.S. notes into circulation. The
ramifications of
this bill are enormous.
Soon after President Kennedy's assassination, Jesuit President Johnson debased the coinage by removing
ALL the
silver from the silver coins and shipping it off to Switzerland.
http://www.reformation.org/secrets-of-the-bank-of-rome.html and http://www.apfn.org/money/jfk.htm
America's Spiraling External Debt and the Decline of the US Dollar
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/FRA501A.html
The Great Gold Robbery
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a397ac2da06c8.htm
American "New Economy" -- a giant Ponzi pyramid.
http://www.apfn.org/money/ponzi.htm
The Root of Your Economic Problems
http://www.apfn.org/money/root.htm
WHO OWNS THE FED?
http://www.apfn.org/money/owns_fed.htm
"The Federal Reserve definitely caused the Great depression by contracting the amount of currency in
circulation by
one-third from 1929 to 1933."
—Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize winning economist
NAPOLEON (1803 - 1825)
He didn't trust the bank saying:
"When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government
control the
situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes... Money has no motherland; financiers
are without
patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain."
Napoleon Bonaparte, 1815
THE HISTORY OF MONEY PART 1-3
http://www.xat.org/xat/moneyhistory.html
http://www.xat.org/xat/usury.html
http://www.xat.org/xat/worldbank.html
"THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/nelson.pdf
Money Facts
http://www.dewoody.net/money
Solutions RE: It's Time To Circle The Wagons
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/solutions.htm
266
Get Involved with the:
The Solution
The Liberty Dollar
A non-profit organization dedicated to creating an alternative to the Federal Reserve’s inflationary
currency. Liberty
dollars are currently used as a medium of exchange worldwide.
The Solution
Government has its eye on your money!
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/gov_eye.htm
The "Federal Reserve" was established only by circumventing democracy; and only to profit the 12
privately owned
banks which comprise it.
http://www.perfecteconomy.com/principal---federal-reserve-system.html
U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Bush Borrowed More Than All Previous Pres….
http://www.apfn.org/money/bush_borrowed.htm
The IRS Tax Fraud Exposed
http://members.tripod.com/~fedinfo/tax_page.html
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Preamble to the Bill of Rights
Sec. 6201. Assessment Authority
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/original_jurisdiction2.htm
16TH AMENDMENT
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/16th.htm
Banking / Federal Reserve System
BY FAR, THE SINGLE GREATEST SLEIGHT-OF-HAND SCAM EVER
PERPETRATED ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. !!
http://www.freedomdomain.com/bankfed.htm
The Money Masters
http://www.themoneymasters.com/
TOP SECRET
Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars
An introductory programming manual
Operations Research
Technical Manual
TM-SW7905.1
This publication marks the 25th anniversary of the Third World War, called the "Quiet War", being
conducted using
subjective biological warfare, fought with "silent weapons."
This book contains an introductory description of this war, its strategies, and its weaponry.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/swqw.htm
Moneypulation (Money Manipulation)
http://www.apfn.org/money/moneypulation.htm
What the President Should Know about our Monetary System
http://www.fame.org/HTM/President16.htm
END GAME
http://www.gold-eagle.com/gold_digest_01/mcintosh040601.html
$$ MONEY $$
http://www.apfn.org/money/money$$.htm
267
The Fed, The Fed, The Fed
http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_01/sennholz040301.html
Federal Reserve 3/20/01
How your money -- and life -- are controlled by America's banking system
rhagelin@worldnetdaily.com
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21872
You Work Hard For Your Money
- But What's Money?
http://www.apfn.org/money/work_hard.htm
Secret Service Raids E-Gold
Fri Mar 30 13:27:23 2001
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,42745,00.html
Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/financial.htm
The Short Road To Chaos And Destruction
An Expose of the Federal Reserve Banking System
http://www.worldnewsstand.net/today/articles/chaos.htm
The End of Ordinary Money, Part I
http://www.aci.net/kalliste/money1.htm
The End of Ordinary Money, Part II:
http://www.aci.net/kalliste/money2.htm
The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman
http://www.josephnewman.com/
The Coming Battle
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/comingbattle.htm
The Federal Reserve
http://library.thinkquest.org/J003358F/reserves.html
OFFSHORE MONEY
ACCUSED BARAKAT BANK DENIES TERROR TIES TO LONDON. The chairman of a financial
organization accused of funding Osama bin Laden's terrorist network denies the allegations.
LINK:
http://www.apfn.net/Messageboard/8-10-03/discussion.cgi.33.html
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/03-24-05/discussion.cgi.165.html
How the "Bank" of Rome creates Federal Reserve Notes out of nothing!!
Step 1 - Fiat "money" creation begins when the "Bank" of Rome decides that the U.S. is ready for
another bite from that old serpent the Devil. They instruct their American branch —the Federal Reserve
Bank — to order Congress to raise the debt limit by $1 billion.
Step 2 - Congress obeys the "Federal" Reserve Bank and instructs the U.S. Treasury to print $1 billion
interest bearing bonds and sell them to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Step 3 - The U.S. Treasury prints the$1 billion interest bearing bonds and sells them to the Federal
Reserve Bank!! As security or collateral they offer the INCOME TAX collected from the taxpayers. The
U.S. Treasury prints only the Principal . . . not the usury or interest.
Step 4 - The "Federal" Reserve or the Fed buys the usury bearing bonds and credits the U.S. Treasury
for $1 billion. The government must now pay back the bonds with INTEREST. As the interest was not
created, it can NEVER be repaid with "Federal" Reserve Dollars!!
In a closed monetary system like the U.S., only "Federal" Reserve Notes are legal tender to pay back the
bonds. Gold and silver are REAL money and could be used to repay the debt but they are stored in
Switzerland and credited to the account of the "Bank" of Rome.
Since the Treasury only printed the PRINCIPAL —not the usury or interest —the money can NEVER
268
be repaid.... The end result is bankruptcy and foreclosure for the government. This is the very same scam
that the Bank of England tried to impose on the Colonies when they made specie or coin the only means
to repay the king's tax.
http://www.reformation.org/federal-reserve.html
The world’s biggest banks and multinational corporations have set up a shadowy system to secretly
move trillions of dollars—a system that can be exploited by tax evaders, drug runners and even
terrorists. Ernest Backes, circa 1981. Ernest Backes exposed this dubious system and
has launched a personal crusade for international oversight earning him some high-powered and
dangerous enemies.
Explosive Revelation$, part 1
http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/26/10/feature1_1.shtml
Explosive Revelation$, part 2
http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/26/10/feature1_2.shtml
Banking & Federal Reserve Quotes
http://www.freedomdomain.com/bankquot.html
Money and Currency in the 21st Century
http://www.apfn.org/money/21st_century.htm
Tres. Sec. Robert E. Rubin says Fed is Independent
http://www.apfn.org/money/fed_inde.htm
A machine was invented that would produce unlimited energy
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/unlimited_energy.htm
Inventor Claims Discovery of Free Energy
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/free_energy.htm
WAR POWERS TODAY IN AMERICA
by the principles applied in 1862
FALLACY & MYTH of PEOPLE BEING THE SOVEREIGN
and that the Constitution was created by the common man.
In reading the Book WAR POWERS, by Whiting, who was the Solicitor General of the War Department
of The United States, published in 1864, it does not come as a shock to me that we are nothing but
slaves of Congress, AKA United States. Whiting was Lincoln point man and developed the basis for
Lincolns justification of the War Policies.
Whiting teamed up with Francis Lieber who wrote the "Lieber Code" that we are now under. James
Montgomery, a present day researcher, also has written extensively on the Reconstruction Acts and the
Lieber Code and how they apply to Americans to this very day. After Whiting left office, his position that
he held, was never replaced. A little prelude to the book by John Yoo, War Powers Under the
Constitution of the United States, Author William Whiting.
An introduction by John Yoo, Professor of Law, Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California at
Berkley: JD., 1992, Yale Law School; AB., 1989, Harvard University who teaches and writes in the
areas of constitutional law.
Upon opening this book, the tenth edition of William Whiting's War Powers under the Constitution of
The United States the reader may be surprised . . .. If anything, Whiting's work helps remove the
blinders that a half century of controversy over undeclared wars- from Korea to Vietnam to Panama to
the Persian Gulf- has placed over the eyes of the legal profession. Born on March 3, 1813 in Concorde,
Mass., he attended Harvard and got his law degree in 1838.
As a Boston attorney, Whiting became known as so masterful a trial lawyer that, in his day, the Common
Pleas Court was sometimes called "Whitings Court". The Boston lawyer began writing in support of the
Lincoln administration’s arrests of suspected sympathizers of the rebellion. As the war proceeded,
Whiting joined the War Department as Solicitor at the request of President Lincoln himself. No doubt it
had to do with Whitings publication, in 1862 in Boston. Whatever the reason for his appointment,
269
Whiting became the point man for the Lincoln administration on the difficult and delicate constitutional
issues that arose from the war.
Whiting joined a truly exceptional group of lawyers who would create many of the theories of the
independent presidency and the national security state that would reappear in the middle of the twentieth
century. In addition to patent officer Peter Wilson, Whiting was joined by former cabinet member and
first judge advocate general Joseph Holt, international law scholar, and Francis Leiber, and Eathan Allen
Hitchcock and Henry W. Halleck, both lawyers who became generals, the latter becoming General in
Chief in 1862. In Whiting's documents he developed the legal theories that would justify Lincolns
measures to conduct the war successfully on both the war front and home front; he also took a
prominent role in publicly disseminating and explaining these views.
One of the best students of Lincoln and of the Civil War, Pulitzer Prize--winning historian- Mark E.
Neely, even suggests that it was Whiting's first pamphlet, War Powers and the President, that convinced
Lincoln that as commander in chief he could abolish slavery in the rebellious states. Until reading
Whiting's works, Neely suggests, Lincoln had been reluctant to issue the Emancipation Proclamation.
It is perhaps a tribute to Whiting's success that no successor was ever appointed to his position upon his
resignation in 1865. His ardent support for the Republican Party continued after leaving government
service. In 1868 he served as presidential elector for Ulysses S. Grant, and in 1872 he was
overwhelmingly elected to Congress by the third district of Massachusetts. Death at age sixty, however,
prevented Whiting from joining the legislative body that he had once worked with as a member of the
executive branch. End of prelude. Contrary to what many people believe, the term United States is NOT
separate and distinct from the term United States of America, because the two are synonymous. As I
stated way back in 1990 and continue to state, America is a country, and the United States is NOT a
country. The United States belongs to America. Since the phrase United States OF America contains the
word "OF" between the two words United States and America, proper use of the word OF
means the United States belongs to America. Another rule of grammar is that the phrase United States is
a particular place and not a group of states united. To become a group of states the word United would
have to appear as united States. The small "u" would change the word United from a noun to an
adjective. So one, to be grammatically correct, would have to write united States of America to
correctly mean all 50 States. But even that is not a country. Simply writing United States of America
means only Congress, AKA United States. A very simple proof is when the TV airs the State of the
Union message. The President is announced as always, "I now present the President of the United
States." It is never announced, I now present the President of the united States of America. To be the
President of the united States of America would mean that the Governors of each of the states would
not have the final say on any laws passed in that state but would have to depend on submitting anything
the Governor had to sign to the President for final approval.
Since I have shown previously, through copious government documents, both of the United States and
England and History, that the common people never ratified the constitutions of any of the states, much
less the United States; people still believe that they created the constitutions and are, therefore, the socalled
Sovereigns. This sovereign status is claimed to be that the people can tell government what and
when to do anything through their perceived notion that they have representatives and these so-called
representatives are their servants. This is a myth that has been told people down through the centuries.
This big lie is passed from generation to generation so much so that people of all walks of life now take
it as gospel truth. This myth is what has caused much dissention among the vast majority of people and
even to cause infighting amongst people called "patriots", "militia" and others of like mind.
This War Powers book is just another support for my research and others such as Mr. Montgomery. I
will lead into this myth by quoting this great authority on War Powers and what he had to say back in
1864. This will be very short and as I read through the book I will add to his work to further show the
Fallacy and Myth. It will be unbelievable to many, who still believe the Big Lie, that they are sovereign
and somehow have control of this supposed government they alleged they created and can dispense with
it when it becomes oppressive as it has today. I hope you are ready because what follows are not my
270
words but those of the author Whiting and concurrence of all government branches.
You also have to remember that we have been in a state of war with these people called Congress and
the other two branches of so called government.
The United States is a belligerent government under international law of nations and the people therein.
Yes you, dear reader, are the enemy subject and have never, ever, been a sovereign, and neither have
your relatives dating back to 1787, UNLESS your relatives were one of the aristocracy having land and
money and possibly a grant from the Crown.
Before I get into the book, and to give you what we call modern day research---Dr. Eugene Schroder
did excellent research on this at the time I was also researching this material. I decided that since Mr.
Schroder was doing this it would be redundant to do the same research, so I proceeded back to Lincoln
to research the war powers back then. I had asked about 10 good researchers if they knew of the War
Powers Acts, specifically 12 Stat 319 and none had researched it in order to give me any answers. But, I
have to start with 48 Stat 1 which Roosevelt shoved through in Executive Order 2039, without
Congress, on the 4th and 5th of March 1933. Then on March 9, 1933, Roosevelt convened Congress
and basically told them what he did and that they had to sign off on it as he declared a national
emergency. This National Emergency made the United States citizens enemies by adding them to the
1917 Trading with the Enemies Act by changing 5(b) of that Act to include Americans, which it never
did before, which is you today.
The original draft was by the Federal Reserve System, NOT Congress, and can be found in President
Hoover's Papers that can be obtained from any Federal Depository. On March 3, 1933, President
Hoover said it was unconstitutional and refused to implement what the Federal Reserve Board drafted.
Immediately after taking office on March 4, 1933, the first thing Roosevelt did after implementing what
Hoover refused, was to close the banks so they could be issued licenses by the President to deal with the
enemy, who was defined now to be all people in the country. Immediately after that, each State set up its
own Emergency War Powers regime to coincide with the United States.
After thorough research in North Carolina by a team of 5 people, we came up with documentation
between the United States, and not only North Carolina, but other States. It was to slowly induce people
into obtaining licenses as now the people, being declared public enemies, had to have licenses. The
documentation showed how all people that were not required to have a license to drive were now
required to have a license merely to travel as a right because they were the enemies. My mother and
father, both deceased, told me that they never had to get a license until 1936. This documentation also
showed how speed laws were set; how federal labor laws and unemployment compensation was
legislated into the States; and the most important of all the social security; touted as insurance, it was in
actuality a means of licensing the "enemy" to track their commerce under the Trading Acts with the
newly revised 1917 Trading with the enemy act.
This enemy surveillance is very evident today by the use of what should be termed the Social Slave
number but is called Social Security. It was instituted by the President, NOT Congress as most people
believe. Oh sure, Congress passed legislation so it appears they instituted it, but under the war powers
only the President institutes anything of importance and Congress under the constitutional war powers
takes a second seat. They, in effect, become the puppets of the Executive branch. While under the war
powers, all branches that should come under the Legislative branch and even the judiciary are controlled
by the executive department through the Commander-in-Chief.
Since 1933, and before then, we have always been under Executive Emergency Orders despite in 1974
all was repealed EXCEPT for section 5(b) of the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917. You can find it
alive and well in Title 12 USC 95 (a)&(b). You can also find the other emergency war powers acts still
existing from 1862 which have NEVER been repealed. They have their genesis from 12 Stat 319, and
are 50 USC 212, 213, and 215 and 28 USC 2461 to 2465 as statutes passed as a direct and immediate
result of declared emergencies. You will see how this is done as you read through this memorandum of
mine. This is totally under military powers of the Commander in Chief, The President. This military Rule
allows the civil government to operate as it has, only it all comes under administrative directives of the
271
Commander In Chief. This explains the reason all courts fly the Executives Commander In Chief gold
fringe flag and Federal courts have stationary using the United States Executive Seal. Now that you
know that, you have been under executive Rule before and since 1933. I will now go back to the first
President to institute the Emergency War Powers Act to make the people the enemy of the State.
Roosevelt just made you the enemy of the banking cartel to protect them. That is why the private
banking system Board can do what they want with impunity. They even wrote in the law that the
signature card you sign when opening a bank account, unbeknownst to you, states in the 35 to 38 page
contract they are to give to you, but don't, that you assume the debt of the United States. This is
unconscionable under the commercial law that you were never informed. This is your promise, assumpsit
in legal terms, which obligates and binds you to pay the debt of the United States by becoming the
surety. Remember all Banks controlled by the Federal Reserve System are agents of the United States
Treasury.
How many people would enter a contract like that, knowing they are responsible for the national debt?
Since the Federal Reserve is a private corporation and was made the fiscal agent of the Treasury to
collect and disburse money, or chose in action called federal reserve notes, is the reason the 1040 IRS
Form is a return; a return of a use portion of the debt that is circulated around by the enemy, AKA the
people of America. This is a very insidious scheme that people have no idea exists. In fact I have found
and written on the fact that in Title 31 it states that banks can collect taxes on the 1040 form that is
presented to them. The first President to use the Emergency powers was Washington. He used it to
institute the first private bank of the United States, which, was against all principles of the constitution,
EXCEPT, when instituted under constitutional war power it became constitutional. Then in order to
control the banks in each of the separate states, which Congress could not do under the Constitution in
time of peace, he made districts out of each of the states. So now you had states and district states and
that is how the district courts of each state were formed so the United States could now have control
where it dared not tread before. Once emergency had been declared then all done under this act is
constitutional.
Contrary to what people believe this act DID NOT set the Constitution aside. It only operated in a
different way under emergency powers. Now with all this in mind that the Commander in Chief can
operate within the Constitution when military rule under the Emergency Powers Act is invoked; we
move to Lincolns time and his Solicitor General of the War Department who wrote the book to show
how common people have always been considered as nothing but mere chattel property of a group of
aristocracy that was called Congress. From the beginning, this is the foundation that has caused people
to slowly lose what rights they THOUGHT they had, but the plan was to get where we are today
without a major rebellion by the people. This almost took place in 1861 with the Southern States
wanting to secede from the Union, and caused Lincoln to invoke the Emergency Powers Act in Order
that he could control the Government without Congress. He did this under the guiding of the works of
Whiting. Once he invoked it Congress could do nothing to stop it and the Courts, under this Act cannot
stop it at all.
WAR POWERS
THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF THE GOVERNMENT TO APPROPRIATE PRIVATE
PROPERTY TO PUBLIC USE, EITHER IN TIME OF PEACE OR IN TIME OF WAR.
There is no restriction as to the kind or character of private property which may be lawfully thus
appropriated, whether it be real estate, personal estate, right in action or in possession, obligations for
money, or for labor and service. Thus the obligations of minor children to their parents, of apprentices to
their masters, and of persons owing labor and service to their masters, may lawfully be appropriated to
public use, or discharged and destroyed for public benefit, by Congress, with the proviso that just
compensation shall be allowed to the parent or master.
The right to use the services of the minor, the apprentice, and the slave, for public benefit, belongs to the
United States. The claims of all American citizens upon their services, whether by local law, orby
272
common law, or by indentures, can be annulled by the same power, for the same reasons, and under the
same restrictions that govern the appropriations of any other private property to public use.
THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE ALL SUBJECTS TO DO MILITARY DUTY.
Slaves, as well as apprentices and minors, are equally subjects of the United States, whether they are or
are not citizens thereof. The government of the United States has the right to call upon its subjects to do
military duty.
"The general government of the United States has, in time of peace, a legal right, under the Constitution,
to appropriate to public use the private property of any subject, or of any number of subjects, owing it
allegiance. Each of the States claims and exercises a similar right over the property of its citizens.
"The only question is, whether this power is not exclusive, see Chirac v Chirac, 2 Wheat. 269; U.S. v
Villato, 2 Dall.
372; Thirlow v Mass., 5 How. 585; Smith v Turner, 7 ib, 556; Golden v Prince,3 W.C.C. Reports, 314
Congress may thus give the privileges of citizenship to any persons whatsoever, black or white. Colored
men, having been citizens in some of the States ever since they were founded, having acted as citizens
prior to 1788 in various civil and military capacities, are therefore citizens of the United States, see case
of Dred Scott; which no part denies that if colored men were citizens of either of the states which
adopted the Constitution, they were citizens of the United States. ... If white subjects or citizens, owe
labor or service, even by formal indentures, such obligations afford no valid excuse against the
requisition of government to have them drafted into the militia to serve the country."
INDEMNITY IS REQUIRED
"But, when individuals are called upon to give up what is their own for the advantage of the community,
justice requires that they should be fairly compensated for it; . . . (Amendments, Art. V, last clause,)
"Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
The language of this amendment admits the right of the United States to take private property for public
use. This amendment, being now a part of the Constitution, leaves that right no longer open to question,
if it ever was in questioned.
PUBLIC USE
What is "public use" for which private property may be taken?
Every appropriation for the benefit of the United States, either for a national public improvement, or to
carry into effect and valid law of Congress for the maintenance, protection, or security of national
interests, is "public use."
REFERENCES AS TO THE CONSTITUTION, SHOWING THE WAR POWERS OF CONGRESS
The powers of the Legislative department in relation to war are contained chiefly in the following
sections in the constitution:--
Art. I., Sect.8, Cl.11. Congress may institute war by declaring it against an enemy. The President alone
cannot do so. Also Congress may make laws concerning captures on land, as well as on water.
Art. I., Sect.8, Cl 12. Congress may raise and support armies: and provide and maintain a navy.
Art. I., Sect.8, Cl.14. Congress may make laws for the government of land and naval forces.
Art. I., Sect. 8. Cl. 15. Congress may provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the
Union, suppress insurrection, and repel invasion.
Art. I., Sect.8, Cl. 16. And may provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for
governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States.
The preamble to the Constitution declares the objects for which it was formed to be these: "to form a
more perfect Union; establish justice; insure domestic tranquillity; provide for the common defense;
273
promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
RULES OF INTERPRETATION
"Congress may pass such laws in peace or in war as they are within the general powers conferred on it,
unless they fall within some express prohibition of the Constitution. If confiscation or emancipation laws
are enacted under the war powers of Congress, we must determine, in order to test their validity,
whether, in suppressing a rebellion of colossal proportions, the United States are, within the meaning of
the Constitution, at war with its own citizens? Whether confiscation and emancipation are sanctioned as
belligerent rights by law and usage of civilized nations? And whether our government has full belligerent
rights against its rebellious subjects."
ARE THE UNITED STATES AT WAR?
"War may originate in either of several ways. Civil war, within the meaning of the Constitution, exists
whenever any combination of citizens is formed to resist generally the execution of any one or all the
laws of the United States, if accompanied with overt acts to give that resistance effect."
"Hence it follows, that government, while engaging in suppressing a rebellion, is not deprived of the
rights of a belligerent against rebels by reason of the fact that no formal declaration of war has been
made against them, as though they were an alien enemy--. . .. The right of a country to treat its
rebellious citizens both as belligerents and as subjects has long been recognized in Europe, and by the
Supreme Court of the United States* See Geo.III. Ch. 9 1777; Pickering Statutes, Vol. 31, page 312;
President's Proclamation, April 16, 1861 and U.S. Statute at Large , 1861, App.P.
2. It has been decided, since this edition was in type, that citizens of the States in rebellion are
considered as public enemies, and are not entitled to sue in courts of the United States.
THE LAW OF NATIONS IS ABOVE THE CONSTITUTION
Having shown that the United States being actually engaged in civil war ---- in other words, having
become a belligerent power, without formal declaration of war,--- it is important to ascertain what some
of the rights of belligerents are, according to the law of nations. It will be observed that the law of
nations is above the constitution of any government; and no people would be justified by its peculiar
constitution in violating rights of other nations. With this caveat, it will be desirable to state some of the
rights of belligerents. Either belligerent may seize and confiscate all the property of the enemy, on land
or on the sea, including real as well as personal estate.
CAPTURE BY TITLE
Some persons have questioned whether title passes in this country by capture or confiscation, by reason
of some of the limiting clauses of the constitution; and others have gone so far as to assert that all the
proceedings under martial law, such as capturing the enemys property, imprisonment of spies and
traitors, and seizures of articles contraband of war [all drug related or other avenues the government of
1999 uses, whether guilty or not to seize such property], and suspending the habeas corpus, are in
violation of the Constitution, which declares that no man shall be deprived of life,
liberty, or property without due process of law, Art. V; that private property shall not be taken for public
use without just compensation, Art. V; that unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be made, Art
IV; that freedom of speech and of the press shall not be abridged, Art. I; and that the right of the people
to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, Art. II.
THESE PROVISIONS NOT APPLICABLE TO A STATE OF WAR
If these rules are applicable to a state of war, then capture of property is illegal, and does not pass a title;
no defensive war can be carried on; . . .Not a gun can be fired constitutionally, because it might deprive
a rebel foe of his life without due process of law ---firing a gun not being deemed due process of law.
274
If these rules above cited have any application in time of war, the United States cannot protect each of
the States from invasion by citizens of other States, nor against domestic violence.
TRUE APPLICATION OF THESE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES
The clauses which have been cited from the amendments to the Constitution were intended as
declarations of the rights of peaceful and loyal citizens, and safeguards in the administration of justice by
the civil tribunals; but it was necessary, in order to give the government the means of defending itself
against domestic and foreign enemies, to maintain its authority and dignity, and to enforce obedience to
its laws, that it should have unlimited war powers. The right of war and the rights of peace cannot
coexist. One must yield to the other. Martial law and civil law cannot operate at the same time and place
upon the same subject matter. Hence the Constitution was framed with full recognition of that fact; it
protects the citizen in peace and war; but his rights enjoyed under the Constitution are different from
those to which he is entitled in time of war.
WHETHER BELLIGERENTS SHOULD BE ALLOWED CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION DEPENDS UPON THE POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT
None of these rights, guaranteed to peaceful citizens, by the Constitution belong to them after they have
become belligerents against their own government. They thereby forfeit all protection under that sacred
charter which they have thus sought to overthrow and destroy. People, this was the ploy that the
Roosevelt and Lincoln governments used to reign over the people of America. The South wanted to
leave, not overthrow the government. The United States always talks with forked tongue and reversed
the roles, as they declared the people the enemy, not the other way around. One party to a contract
cannot break it and at the same time hold the other to perform to it. It is true that if the government
elects to treat them as subjects and to hold them liable only to penalties for violating statutes, it must
concede to all of them all the legal rights and privileges which other citizens would have when under
similar accusations.
THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS CONFISCATION
Nothing in the Constitution interferes with the belligerent right of confiscation of enemy property.
Always remember people, that you are the enemy declared by your wonderful supposed government that
you, claiming to be Sovereigns, can abolish. The right to confiscate is derived from a state of war. It is
one of the rights of war. The right of confiscation belongs to the government as the necessary
consequence of the power and duty of making war-- OFFENSIVE or defensive. (EMPHASIS mine)
If authority were needed to support the right of confiscation, it may be found in 3 Dallas, 227; Vit.lib.iii.,
ch. 8, sect. 188; lib., ch. 9, sect. 161; Smith v Mansfield, Cranch, 306-7; Cooper v Telfair, 4 Dallas;
Brown v. U.S., 8 Cranch 110, 228, 229. From the foregoing authorities, it is evident that the
government has a right, as a belligerent power, to capture or to confiscate any and all the personal
property of the enemy; that there is nothing in the Constitution which limits or controls the exercise of
that right; and that capture in war, or confiscation by law, passes a complete title to the
property taken; and that, if judicial condemnation of enemy property be sought, in order to pass title to
it by formal decree of courts, by mere seizure, and without capture, the confiscation must have been
declared by act of Congress, a mere declaration of war not being ex vi termini sufficient for that
purpose.
MILITARY GOVERNMENT UNDER MARTIAL LAW
In addition to the right of confiscating personal property of the enemy, a state of war also confers upon
the government other not less important belligerent rights, and among them, the right to seize and hold
conquered territory by military force, and of instituting and maintaining military government over it,
thereby suspending in part, or in whole, the ordinary civil administration. The exercise of this right has
been sanctioned by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of California,
275
Cross v Harrison, 16 How 164-190. And it is founded upon well established
doctrines of the law of nations. No citizen, whether loyal or rebel, is deprived of any right guaranteed to
him in the Constitution by reason of his subjection to martial law, because martial law, when in force, is
constitutional law.
A SEVERE RULE OF BELLIGERENT LAW
"Property of persons residing in the enemys country is deemed, in law, hostile, and subject to
condemnation without any evidence as to the opinions or predilections of the owner. If he is the subject
of a neutral, or a citizen of one of the belligerent States, and has expressed no disloyal sentiments
towards his country, still his residence in the enemy's country impresses upon his property, engaged in
commerce and found upon the ocean, a hostile character, and subjects it to condemnation. This familiar
principle of law is sanctioned in the highest courts of England and of the United States, and has been
decided to apply to cases of civil as well as of foreign war.
CIVIL RIGHT OF LOYAL CITIZENS IN LOYAL DISTRICTS ARE
MODIFIED BY THE EXISTENCE OF WAR
While war is raging, many of the rights held sacred by the Constitution-- rights which cannot be violated
by any acts of Congress-- may and must be suspended and held in abeyance.
BELLIGERENT RIGHT TO CONFISCATE THE ENEMY'S REAL ESTATE
The belligerent right of the government to confiscate enemys real estate, situated in this country, can
hardly admit of a question. The title to no inconsiderable part of the real estate in each of the original
States of the Union, rests upon the validity of the confiscation acts, passed by our ancestors against loyal
adherents to the crown. Probably none of these States failed to pass and apply these laws. English and
American acts of confiscation were recognized by the laws of both countries, and their operation
modified by treaties; their validity was never denied. The only authority which either of the States or
colonies ever had for passing such laws was derived from the fact that they were the belligerents.
THE PRESIDENT IS THE SOLE JUDGE
It belongs exclusively to the President to judge when the exigency arises in which he has the authority,
under the constitution, to call forth the militia and his decision is exclusive on all other person.
Such is the language of Chief Justice Taney, in delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court, in Martin v
Mott, 12 Wheaton, 19.
TECHNICAL LANGUAGE TO BE CONSTRUED TECHNICALLY.
The language of the Constitution is peculiar; it is technical; and it shows on the face of it an intention to
limit the technical operation of attainders, not to limit the scope or extent of legislative penalties. If the
authors of the Constitution meant to say that Congress should pass no law punishing treason by
attainder, or by its consequences, viz., forfeiture of estate, or corruption of blood, they would, in plain
terms, have said so; and there would have been an end to the penalties of attainder, as there was an end
to bills of attainder. Instead of saying, "Congress shall have the power to declare the punishment of
treason, but shall not impose the penalties of attainder upon the offender," they said, "Congress shall
have the power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption
of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted."
This phraseology has reference only to technical effect of attainder. The Aworking of forfeitures" is a
phrase used by lawyers to show the legal result or effect which arises from a certain state of facts.
Note. Since the publication of the seventh edition, it has been decided by Underwood, J., in the Eastern
District Court of the U.S. for Virginia, in the case of U.S. v Latham, first, that the Confiscation Act
above cited is authorized by the Constitution; second, that by the terms of that Act (dated July 17th,
1862, ch. 195), as modified by the joint resolution of July 27th, 1862 (No. 63), the punishment of
treason is not limited to forfeiture of the life estate of the offender, and is not required to be so limited
276
by the Constitution; but the forfeiture extends to the entire estate in fee simple.
THE CONFISCATION ACTS OF 1862 IS NOT A BILL OF ATTAINDER,
NOR AN EX POST FACTO LAW
This act is not a bill of attainder, because it does not punish the offender in any instance with corruption
of blood, and it does not declare him, by act of the legislature, guilty of treason, inasmuch as the
offenders guilt must be duly proved and established by judicial proceedings before he can be sentenced.
It is not ex post facto law, as it declares no act committed prior to the time when the law goes into
operation to be a crime, or to be punishable as such. It provides for no attainder of treason, and
therefore none of the penal consequences which might have otherwise have followed them from such
attainder.
ACT OF 1862, SECTION VI, DOES NOT PURPORT TO PUNISH BY TREASON
If the death penalty is not inflicted on the guilty, and if he be not accused of treason, no question as to
the validity of the statute could arise under this clause of the constitution limiting the effect of attainders
for treason. No objection could be urged against its validity on the ground of its forfeiting of
confiscating all the property of the offender, or of its depriving him of liberty by imprisonment, or of it
exiling him from this country. . . .But the crime punished by section 6 is not the crime of treason; and
whether there be or be not a limitation to the power of the legislature to punish that crime, there is no
limit to its power to punish the crime described in this section,*. See Note, page 111 United
States v Latham.
Though treason is the highest political crime known to the codes of law, yet wide spread and savage
rebellion is still a higher crime against society.
STATE RIGHTS AND SECESSION DOCTRINES IN THE JURY ROOM
The jury are by law judges of the law and the fact, according to the opinion of many eminent lawyers
and judges. Whether this be so or not, their verdict, being upon the law and the fact, in a criminal case,
they become in effect judges of law and fact. Suppose that a judge presiding at the trial is honest and
loyal, and that the jury is composed of men who believe that loyalty to the State is paramount to loyalty
to the United States; or that the States had, and have, a lawful right to secede from the Union. Did not
the Declaration of Independence give that lawful right? Think again. Whatever of the opinions of the
judge presiding in the United States courts might be on these questions, he would have no power to root
out from the jury their honest belief, that obedience to their own laws of their own seceding State is
not, and cannot be, treason. [Now you are going to see how they have destroyed the jury to gain a
conviction in 99 percent of the cases, say IRS cases, so that the courts control the outcome under the
doctrine of the Military Rules of War, and the jury be damned.] The first step towards securing a verdict
would be to destroy the belief of the jury in these doctrines [sounds like jury tampering] of State rights,
paramount State sovereignty, and the right of secession. To decide the issue, according to the
conscientious judgement of the jurymen upon the facts and the law, would require them to find a verdict
against the United States.
SYMPATHY
But this is not the only difficulty in the operation of this statute. The grand jury and the petit jury are to
be drawn from those who are neighbors and possibly friends of the traitor. Remember, a traitor is a
political" enemy as defined by the Solicitor himself and you are a "political enemy" today] The accused
has the further advantage of knowing, before the time of trial, the names of all the jurors, and of all the
witnesses to be produced against him; he has the benefit of counsel, and the process of the United States
to compel the attendance of witnesses in his behalf.* Statute of April 30, 1790, Sec.29. How improbable
is it that any jury of twelve men will be found to take away the lives or estates of their associates, when
277
some of the jurymen themselves, or their friends and relatives or debtors, are involved in the same
offense!
This is why the government stacks the jury. Now we are going to get to the meat of jurisdiction in IRS
cases. I have stated all along and written about it extensively that all revenue is under admiralty, but very
few will listen.
LAWS ARE MOST EFFECTIVE WHICH REQUIRE NO REBEL
TO ADMINISTER THEM
Those sections of the act of 1862, empowering government to seize rebel property, real, personal, and
mixed, and apply it to the use of the army, [today it is the local police using seized property] to secure
the condemnation and sale of seized property, so as to make it available, and to authorize proceedings in
rem, conformably to proceedings in admiralty or revenue cases, are of a different and far more effective
character. Some persons have turned their attention to certain passages in the amendments relating, as
was supposed, to this subject.
Article IV. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated".
This amendment merely declares that the right of being secure against UNREASONABLE seizures or
arrests shall not be violated. It does not declare that NO ARRESTS shall be made. Will any one deny
that it is reasonable to arrest or capture the person of the public enemy?
If all arrests, reasonable or unreasonable, were prohibited, public safety would be disregarded in favor of
the rights of individuals. So much for people who believe the rights of the individual supersede the
public AKA Government rights. Now I ask you, Are you Sovereign?
Not only may military, but even civil, arrests be made when reasonable. Emphasis the Solicitors.
48 Statutes at Large 1, very specifically declared the people of America public enemies, whether of the
banking cartel or otherwise, it was already done by Lincoln. Now to prove public enemies have no rights
that are protected by the infamous Bill of Rights is this passage.
OBJECTION THAT ARRESTS ARE MADE WITHOUT INDICTMENT
The Fifth article of the amendments to the Constitution provides that, this article has no reference to the
rights of citizens under the exigencies of war, but relates only to their rights in time of peace.
OFFICERS MAKING ARRESTS NOT LIABLE TO CIVIL SUIT OR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
That military arrests are deemed necessary for public [definition for "public" means government only
safety by Congress is shown by the act of March 3, 1863, ch.81, wherein it is provided that no person
arrested by authority of the President of the United States shall be discharged from imprisonment so
long as the war lasts, and the President shall see fit to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
MILITARY ARRESTS LAWFUL
The laws of war, military and martial, written and unwritten, founded on the necessities of government,
are sanctioned by the Constitution and laws, and recognized as valid by the Supreme Court of the
United States. Arrests made under the laws of war are neither arbitrary nor without legal justification.
In Cross v Harrison, Judge Wayne, delivering the opinion, (16 Howard, 189, 190,) says:
Early in 1847 the President, as constitutional commander -in-chief of the army and navy, authorized the
military and navel commanders of our forces in California to exercise the belligerent rights of a
conqueror, and to form a civil government for the conquered country, and to impose duties on imports
and tonnage as military contributions for the support of government and of the army which had the
conquest in possession. No one can doubt that these orders of the President and the action of our army
and navy commanders in California, in conformity with them, were according to the law of arms &c.
So in Fleming v Page, (9 Howard, 615,) Chief Justice Taney says:
"The person who acted in the character of collector in this instance, acted as such under the authority of
278
the military commander and in obedience to his orders; and the regulations he adopted were not those
prescribed by law, but by the President in his character as commander-in-chief."
It is established by these opinions that military orders, in accordance with martial law or the laws of war,
though they may be contrary to municipal laws; and the use of the usual means of enforcing such orders
by military power, including capture, arrest, imprisonment, or the destruction of life and property, [such
as those in the Waco incident and others throughout the country] are authorized and sustained upon the
firm basis of martial law, which is, in time of war, and national emergency that we have been living under
all our lives] constitutional law.
END OF PART ONE OF WHITINGS WAR POWERS
Now people, are you still sovereign? Did common people write such a Constitution that would destroy
the children so they could be taken by Congress without your consent? I think not.
And you think that the people who fought for freedom would have written and ratified such a power to
a group of mere men, Congress, by way of this Constitution that you so dearly love? Are you stating to
realize something is amiss?
Now if you are Sovereign why do they call all people subjects?
They italicized the words, not I. Without a shadow of a doubt you are slaves to Congress. Do you have
to wonder anymore why the state can take your children and you are powerless to do anything about it?
And the common people wrote and believe in a Constitution that would allow a group of men called
Congress to have so much power when they just fought for freedom? I dont think so, and in fact it has
been proven in every original constitution that no common man had a say in drafting any Constitution.
The proof can be found in every State archive Building by obtaining the original writings.
Was not Patrick Henry correct when he stated in the June 7th 1788 Convention that the Constitution,
"Among other deformities, it has an awful squinting: it squints toward monarchy. And does not raise
indignation in the breast of every American? Your President may easily become King. . . The army will
salute him Monarch: your militia will leave you and assist in making him King and fight against you. And
what have you to oppose this force? What will then become of you and your rights? Will not absolute
despotism ensue?"
And what of James Wilson when he voiced, "Henry looked upon "that paper" as the most fatal plan that
could possible be conceived to enslave a free people." Ok, so what does commit you to the wrath of
Congress? It is stated in the Book in big italic letters, which you all should look in a grammar dictionary
to see what italics mean. As stated, the people are "SUBJECTS" of the Government just like the
"subjects" of English Rule and the words in italics that control you as subjects are allegiance. Allegiance
can be found in many ways. People are pledging the Pledge of Allegiance; claiming to be a citizen of
either a State or of the United States; registering to vote; claiming to be a "resident" in the state of the
forum; signing a signature card at the bank that obligates you to accept the debt of Congress so you are
bound by contract to pay, thereby becoming a "subject".; claiming that the Constitution is yours;
claiming the Constitution was designed by people like you and that is the law that you must abide by. All
are presumed to be allegiance. Now did this apply to all, even colored people? Why yes, and this Book
proves that the Constitution CREATED slavery, and that it took away the rights of citizenship of the
colored people. Now, those people that argue that the 14th Amendment made the colored people free
might be correct, but it also made the white people slaves when relying on the 14th Amendment, even
though they became slaves to the establishment when declared enemys of the "State". Therefore, the
blacks just traded masters as the belligerent power, the Congress, controlled them as enemy
property as no money was paid to the original slave holders (just compensation) according to the
constitution in time of peace. After all it was Congress that took the blacks in 1787 and by recognizing
them as property of the slave holder actually instituted slavery of all blacks that once were "citizens"
having all the rights and privileges they had before the Constitution was enacted by those in power.
The Book shows the misinformation used by people claiming that only white people were citizens. It
also shows that the word citizen was used well before the 14th Amendment, as seen in the quotes below.
279
Hence the President and Congress via the Constitution took away the rights of the colored people by
declaring them property. The Constitution, that you people reading this; believe that you are sovereign;
believe that common people drafted and ratified the Constitution; believe that you own your property;
believe that you are not subjects of a group of men called Congress, or that of legislators of the states;
believe the Bill of Rights protects you; believe the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Well let
me tell you that your beliefs are 100 percent wrong. What if I told you that this Book states that treaties
and International law of Nations are supreme over even the Constitution drafted by the aristocracy of
this country and that even the states succumb to these treaties and International Law?
This Book proves it. This Book had an advisory board of eight professors and eminent lawyers carrying
L.L.D.;
J.S.D.; S.J.D.; J.D., M.A.L.S.; F.R.B and Ph.D. to authenticate its contents that was written by the
Solicitor General of the War Department of the United States. The Constitution that you claim you love
so much, took away natural rights of man via the war power and congressional right in time of peace.
The word "Public" means government only and not the mass of people. It is limited
to Congress or State Legislators. You common people have no representation whatsoever. All Congress
people do is represent the United States corporation claiming they represent you in the district state that
Washington created under the War Powers clause in 1791. In this chapter it explains the specific parts
that are war powers clauses and they are; Article I, Section 8, Clauses 11, 12, 14, 15, and 16. The Book
also states that, "The preamble to the Constitution declares the objects for which it was framed to be
these"-- then it is quoted. I now quote from another authority. Third edition of Cases in Constitutional
Law, by Cushman & Cushman. In here they quote the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Curtiss Wright Export
Corporation, 299 US 304, 1936. "As a result of the separation from Great Britain by the colonies, acting
as a unit, the powers of EXTERNAL sovereignty passed from the Crown not to the colonies severally,
but to the colonies in their collective CORPORATE capacity as the United States of America." I
purposely emphasized the words because the Crown was still the sovereign INTERNALLY because of
his corporate colonies mineral rights that he still controlled. This is found in Mr. Montgomerys works on
www.atgpress.com. The fact that the United States is a corporation, see 28 USC 3002 (15), is why the
United States can seize property of anyone whenever the need arises. The evidence for this is found in:
16 USC Sec. 831x TITLE 16 CHAPTER 12A Sec. 831x. Condemnation proceedings; institution by
Corporation; venue -STATUTE-
"The Corporation may cause proceedings to be instituted for the acquisition by condemnation of any
lands, easements, or rights-of-way which, in the opinion of the Corporation, are necessary to carry out
the provisions of this chapter. The proceedings shall be instituted in the United States district court for
the district in which the land, easement, right-of-way, or other interest, or any part thereof, is located,
and such court shall have full jurisdiction to divest the complete title to the property sought to be
acquired out of all persons or claimants and vest the same in the United States in fee simple, and to enter
a decree quieting the title thereto in the United States of America."
The corporation spoken of is the United States or any of its created corporations that take land under
eminent domain, such as the States or any corporation they form in which they own 51 percent or more
of that corporation. So in time of war, which a national emergency falls under, even though no shooting
or invasion has occurred, then all the Constitution that you so dearly love and would die for, is the very
same document that allows all the presidents since Washington to; declare the first emergency powers
act to institute the first Bank of the United States in direct contradiction to the Constitution in time of
peace; Lincoln who made the people the enemy of the United States and its Union Members, the States;
Roosevelt declaring the national emergency in 1933 under the war powers act and the trading with the
enemy act; to the present President Clinton to control you as citizen/subjects/ slaves with the system
designed and drafted by the landed aristocracy in treaty with the Crown. That is why the Solicitor,
Whiting, stated that International Law of Nations and Treaty rein supreme and not the Constitution
when emergency powers are invoked.
Right here is proof that if Congress pass laws that are repugnant to human rights, and there has been a
280
total erosion of many, many freedoms of Americans, as you well know, then Whiting is stating that the
people, who are perceived by people themselves to be Sovereigns, are without any such power to
correct the law or laws repugnant to their rights. If the people were truly Sovereigns as they claim, no
such section in the constitution created by the common man would exist. For if in doing so, the people
would have declared that they elected another King or dictator, and to thwart these
rights the people claim as sovereigns, all the President or Congress has to do is invoke the emergency
powers Act. Such was done in 1933 when people demanded their money from the banks that stole all
their money. You know, the ones that you have signed the signature card agreeing to accept the National
debt? This right to seek a return of money deposited in the banks for safe keeping was thwarted by
Roosevelt to protect all the banks, which, included his friend Rockefeller who owned the Chicago bank
and would lose all his holdings if forced to return the people’s money that was rightfully theirs. This was
called suppression by government because they were suppressing a rebellion of the people to claim what
was rightfully theirs from a private banking system that was now under the supposed control of
the United States as it acted as the agent for the United States when the United States did away with a
truly Independent Treasury by the Act of 1920 in the year 1921, making the PRIVATE federal reserve
system the fiscal agent of the United States.
Although this Book deals with the Civil War, the principles laid out are for any emergency declared
under the War Power clauses, not just the Civil war of 1860's, but Roosevelts invoking of that Act,
which to this day still exists. So the following must be read with this in mind when considering that a
majority of people say there is no more constitution.
There is a Constitution, as it is constitutional for what the government does to you today under war
powers---like take your land as most people in confrontation with farm land or wet lands would agree;
confiscate car, home and whatever under the war on Drugs with out due process of any law that would
exist in time of peace; license and number all people to track the public enemies, that being you. It
would behoove the reader to seek the definitions of belligerent in both legal and standard dictionaries.
The United States, as belligerent, IS the de facto government although constitutional, when people read
the definitions closely.
I am at this point, inserting what came off the Internet of the hearings before Congress, of just one
evidence of the confiscation of hundreds of thousands every year, that, in time of peace and not under
war powers, would have never taken place. When reading this keep in mind what you have already read
and are about to read after this actual happening.
Introductory statement at the Judiciary Hearing, July 22, 1996. Rayburn Building.
To: House of Representatives / Committee on the Judiciary / Civil Forfeiture Reform
I sincerely appreciate this opportunity to speak to you in person about my mother's experience with the
abuse of our national civil forfeiture law, a law which ignores due process, encourages abuse by police
and prosecutors, confiscates property from innocent law abiding citizens and threatens our sacred honor
with the tyranny of a police state. My mother is an 85 pound, 75 year old hardworking frugal lady, who
chose to squirrel away any extra money she had rather than buy herself any of the things most people
consider necessities. Although she has bought a few residential rental properties, she still tears Kleenex
in half to stretch her money, and settles for eating half sandwiches rather than run up her grocery bill.
She has never taken a vacation or missed a day's work in the business, but neither has she ever
been to a shopping mall. She's always lived as though the next Great Depression would happen any day.
By 70, she managed to save around $70,000 which she kept in her house because her Depression
experience taught her not to always trust banks.
In December of 1989, the U.S. Government came to my mother's home and took her savings from a
floor safe in her basement. Three months later, they seized her home and two rental properties she
owned (20 men). You need to know my mother was never charged with a crime, and the police
acknowledged she was never part of my brother's marijuana ring conspiracy. Mom's biggest sin was
allowing the adult son she loved to live next door to her. After my brother was indicted, he fled town.
The government suspected she PROBABLY had allowed him to use her property illegally, and
281
PROBABLY been given cash earned by him illegally. As you know, asset forfeiture laws only require
probable cause to seize property. Once property has been seized it is the owner's burden to prove
innocence to the government. When this happened to Mom, I thought "innocent until proven guilty"
would apply in her case and she would immediately get her cash back. Trusting the government, I didn't
even hire an attorney then for that matter. I soon learned later that under the Constitution a citizen isn't
afforded innocent until proven guilty in civil forfeiture cases. She wasn't considered innocent and the
government didn't have to prove anything. The $70,000 they took from mom was mostly old bills dated
from the 60's and 70's and was covered with mold and mildew. The safe was rusted shut and had to be
drilled open. Tragically, the FBI did not keep her cash in an evidence locker, but deposited her money
into a bank, comingling
it with other people's money and thus destroying her evidence and proof of innocence.
The morning government agents banged on Mom's door telling her they were there to seize her home, it
included the local police, County Sheriff's Dept., U.S. Marshall's Service, several FBI agents, and IRS
agents (about 20 in all). All this force to take some property from one, innocent, unarmed, law abiding
70 year old, 85 pound woman. I immediately called our family attorney and he met me at Mom's house.
It had previously been said to me by an agent, "They want to take everything your mother has a make
her tell what she knows about your brother, and maybe it will make him come back, too!"
When I arrived at Mom's home she was in a daze. One agent had a camcorder going on her as she sat
there in her old negligee at 8:00 AM. She said she asked the agents where she was suppose to live and
was told, "I don't care where you go, but you have a half-hour to pack up and get out !" Thankfully, our
attorney was able to reach an agreement that allowed Mom to "rent" her own house from the
government until the case went to trial. The horror of the forfeiture squad invading her home still brings
regular nightmares to mom 6 years later. I did everything in my power to convince
the government agents that they were making a huge mistake and that mom was not a criminal. To them
that didn't matter. Since they COULD seize her property, they did. An agent said to me, "When I first
took this case to my boss, he said not even to mess around with it, that it was just another stupid
marijuana case, until I showed him how many assets we could get!" I spent many, many cooperative and
truthful hours trying to convince them that this was insane, and finally realized it would cost me more
going to trial than her properties were worth. I eventually made a settlement with them and Mom got to
keep a little of what she worked her whole life for. They took most of it, including her dignity and love
for our government.
I am here for my mother and our Country. It is too late to help her case, and besides, I had the
government sign a paper that they could never bother her again. I want to make sure they can never do
this to another mother with a bad kid. I have been on this crusade since I saw a Readers Digest article in
1992, titled, Is It Police Work or Plunder, about nationwide forfeiture abuse and Congressman Hyde's
effort to reform this law. I bought a computer, joined an Online
Internet Service and have been e mailing thousands of unaware citizens to educate them about this
barbaric civil forfeiture law. Nobody thinks it is right when they learn how it is used, except prosecutors
who do not want a proof provision in the law. One prosecutor told me, "Citizens don't need a proof
provision, those in charge of a case are perfectly capable of determining who is guilty!" That statement, I
was told by a Constitutional law professor, is the definition of tyranny. I love the America I knew
growing up in the 40's and 50's, but am scared to death of the police state this Country could
become with more and more laws allowing forfeiture. IT HAS TO STOP. Our Founding Fathers put
their lives on the line against tyranny and cavalier attitudes. In my opinion, no real or personal property
should be forfeited except in criminal cases. Eliminate this ridiculous, insane, corrupting law, or re-write
it to include meaningful proof, fairness and compassion. It is ruining people's lives and is just another
national disgrace. Thank you. Note: Mom eventually took her own life over this matter.
End of testimony
This could very well happen to you. This man, speaking for his mother, has no idea he is talking to the
282
proverbial foxes guarding the status quo to see that it is kept in tact and paying lip service to correct
what they know cannot be corrected unless the President declares, #1 a repeal of 12 Stat 319. #2 a
repeal of 12 USC 95 (a) & (b). #3 A repeal of section 5 (b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act as written
in 48 Stat 1, AND, abolishing the District States the Washington created to gain control over the people
of the States in 1791. Now one must remember, that present day law is in reality military law that allows
the civilian authorities to apply the rules of war upon belligerents, the domestic enemy, YOU. One must
also remember that the United States has declared war upon its citizens by the act of 12 Stat 319 and 48
Stat 1, which, to this day, has never been repealed by Congress. The fact that Title 12 USC 95 (a) & (b)
has declared the people of America "public enemies" still exists, proves it is a "domestic war" upon
which President Roosevelt acted at the behest of the Federal Reserve. We have become the belligerent
enemy to the belligerent United States. Now mind you that we did not declare war against the
United States but rather the United States declared an imperfect war upon the people of America. There
is no public declaration as if we were a foreign power as Japan was in 1942. No, there is a subtle
declaration in 48 Stat 1 and 12 Stat 319. People find this hard to believe until they read for themselves
all these statutes and United States Codes and regulations I have quoted herein. The law speaks for itself
quite clearly and after reading them it would be impossible for anyone to deny this fact. This is exactly
how and why the IRS operates, the BATF operates, the DEA operates and all those other alphabet
agencies of government, even down to child services. And, remember the IRS is nothing but hired
private collectors by the IRS District Director to collect for the private federal reserve system, the debt
owed to the International Monetary Fund by the United States, that caused you to become the
"enemies" in 1933 by 48 Stat 1, which was written by the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve.
You also must remember at the beginning of this quoted Book, it is said by Whiting, that minors can be
taken in time of war from their belligerent parent, or have you forgotten so soon?
The following proves that you never owned your property and if you did, it can still be taken, evidence
the woman's plight in end note #9. So much for the argument that even the King may not enter your
house although the cold, wind, rain , etc. etc. may. And so much for the argument that you are sovereign
and the government takes a back seat to your wishes. Remember, reader that you have been declared the
"enemy" by those officials of government, namely, Congress and the presidents, who you claim to be
your servants. The confiscation acts have not been repealed and have been in force since 1787. Is it not
now evident that the common man, wishing to be free, would have set up such a government if he were
Sovereign? How does the U.S. government or the States seemingly get around this attainder or ex post
facto law when; seizing property of the farmer; people that they want the land for national parks; wet
land violations that they dream up; seizures of all kinds of property under "drug war laws" whether
innocent or not without due process? The reasons are found in War powers, which are constitutional. If
you are not found guilty of treason the validity of any statute passed by Congress, or for that matter the
State legislatures cannot be questioned, only if you are so charged with treason, and, therefore, what
you thought was a protection does not become a protection under the constitutional operation of
military rule by civil authorities under war powers acts.
So now you know that treason is ONLY a POLITICAL crime, how is it that we, the people of America,
have become the enemies of the POLITICAL establishment? The political aristocracy who wrote the
Constitution did not intend for the masses to take part and become sovereigns as you so think that you
are. No, neither you nor your ancestors ever were a party to the contract called the Constitution of any
of the colonies nor of the United States. I have quoted the case in my New History of America from
which I quote only a small part here, " to this: that the States, in making the Constitution, intended to
give up the power of self preservation."
Lastly, the Court said this of the People who made the constitutions, "The people of the States who
made the Constitution, considered themselves as the sovereign, and the Government as the subject. They
were the principal- it the agent. That this is also true none will dispute." We all know it is not us people
who made the Constitutions but the select few as stated by the Court.
"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the
283
Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the
parties to it. And they may complain. If they do they are entitled to redress. Or they may waive the right
to complain." The only way to control the masses is to institute constitutional war powers to institute a
different, but constitutional, set of parameters upon the people. Once the war powers are adopted they
can change the statutes to fit the ends they want to achieve. They do it slowly so as to not give a clue to
the masses. The war powers act of 1862 now allowed the President and Congress to constitutionally
change the statutes that guaranteed the people, in juries, to rule on both the law and the facts. Not only
were the statutes changed that took away to power to judge the law but it also took away the
right to be judged by your peers.
Title 50 Sec. 212. Confiscation of property employed to aid insurrection
Whenever during any insurrection against the Government of the United States, after the President shall
have declared by proclamation that the laws of the United States are opposed, and the execution thereof
obstructed, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial
proceedings, or by the power vested in the marshals by law, any person, or his agent, attorney, or
employee, purchases or acquires, sells or gives, any property of whatsoever kind or description, with
intent to use or employ the same, or suffers the same to be used or employed in aiding, abetting, or
promoting such insurrection or resistance to the laws, or any person engaged therein; or being the
owner of any such property, knowingly uses or employs, or consents to such use or employment of the
same, all such property shall be lawful subject of prize and capture wherever found; and it shall be the
duty of the President to cause the same to be seized, confiscated, and condemned.
Notes on Title 50, Section 213
SOURCE
(R.S. Sec. 5309; Feb. 27, 1877, ch. 69, Sec. 1, 19 Stat. 253; Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, Sec. 291, 36 Stat.
1167.) -CODCODIFICATION
R.S. Sec. 5309 derived from act Aug. 6, 1861, ch. 60, Sec. 2,12 Stat. 319. Act Mar. 3, 1911, conferred
the powers and duties of the former circuit courts upon the district courts.
AMENDMENTS
1877 - Act Feb. 27, 1877, inserted ''may'' after ''any district in which the same''.
Sec. 213. Jurisdiction of confiscation proceedings
Such prizes and capture shall be condemned in the district court of the United States having jurisdiction
of the amount, or in admiralty in any district in which the same may be seized, or into which they may be
taken and proceedings first instituted.
Notes on Title 50, Section 215
SOURCE
(R.S. Sec. 5311; June 25, 1948, ch. 646, Sec. 1, 62 Stat. 909.)
CODIFICATION
R.S. Sec. 5311 derived from act Aug. 6, 1861, ch. 60, Sec. 3, 12 Stat. 319. -CHANGECHANGE
OF NAME
Act June 25, 1948, eff. Sept. 1, 1948, substituted ''United States attorney'' for ''attorney of the United
States''. See section 541 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, and Historical and Revision Notes
thereunder.
Sec. 215. Institution of confiscation proceedings
The Attorney General, or the United States attorney for any judicial district in which such property may
at the time be, may institute the proceedings of condemnation, and in such case they shall be wholly for
the benefit of the United States; or any person may file an information with such attorney, in which case
the proceedings shall be for the use of such informer and the United States in equal parts.
Now this is not the only place that seizure is found.
284
28 USC. FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Admiralty and maritime rules of practice (which included libel
procedures) were superseded, and civil and admiralty procedures in United States district courts were
unified, effective July 1, 1966, see rule 1 and Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime
Claims, Appendix to this title.
Sec. 2461. Mode of recovery (a) Whenever a civil fine, penalty or pecuniary forfeiture is prescribed for
the violation of an Act of Congress without specifying the mode of recovery or enforcement thereof, it
may be recovered in a civil action. (b) Unless otherwise provided by Act of Congress, whenever a
forfeiture of property is prescribed as a penalty for violation of an Act of Congress and the seizure takes
place on the high seas or on navigable waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the
United States, such forfeiture may be enforced by libel in admiralty but in cases of seizures on land the
forfeiture may be enforced by a proceeding by libel which shall conform as near as may be to
proceedings in admiralty.
Sec. 2462. Time for commencing proceedings
Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress, an action, suit or proceeding for the enforcement of
any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture, pecuniary or otherwise, shall not be entertained unless commenced
within five years from the date when the claim first accrued if, within the same period, the offender or
the property is found within the United States in order that proper service may be made thereon.
Sec. 2463. Property taken under revenue law not repleviable All property taken or detained under any
revenue law of the United States shall not be repleviable, but shall be deemed to be in the custody of the
law and subject only to the orders and decrees of the courts of the United States having jurisdiction
thereof.
SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS
This section is referred to in title 26 section 7434.
Sec. 2464. Security; special bond
(a) Except in cases of seizures for forfeiture under any law of the United States, whenever a warrant of
arrest or other process in rem is issued in any admiralty case, the United States marshal shall stay the
execution of such process, or discharge the property arrested if the process has been levied, on receiving
from the respondent or claimant of the property a bond or stipulation in double the amount claimed by
the libelant, with sufficient surety, to be approved by the judge of the district court where the case is
pending, or, in his absence, by the collector of the port, conditioned to answer the decree of the court in
such case. Such bond or stipulation shall be returned to the court, and judgment or decree thereon,
against both the principal and sureties, may be secured at the time of rendering the decree in the
original case. The owner of any vessel may deliver to the marshal a bond or stipulation, with sufficient
surety, to be approved by the judge of the district court, conditioned to answer the decree of such court
in all or any cases that are brought thereafter in such court against the vessel. Thereupon the execution
of all such process against such vessel shall be stayed so long as the amount secured by such bond or
stipulation is at least double the aggregate amount claimed by libelants in such suits which are begun and
pending against such vessel. Similar judgments or decrees and remedies may be had on such bond or
stipulation as if a special bond or stipulation had been filed in each of such suits.
(b) The court may make necessary orders to carry this section into effect, particularly in giving proper
notice of any such suit. Such bond or stipulation shall be indorsed by the clerk with a minute of the suits
wherein process is so stayed. Further security may be required by the court at any time.
(c) If a special bond or stipulation in the particular case is given under this section, the liability as to said
case on the general bond or stipulation shall cease. The parties may stipulate the amount of the bond or
stipulation for the release of a vessel or other property to be not more than the amount claimed in the
libel, with interest, plus an allowance for libelant's costs. In the event of the inability or refusal of the
parties to so stipulate, the court shall fix the amount, but if not so fixed then a bond shall be required in
the amount prescribed in this section.
285
Security; special bond
Sec. 2465. Return of property to claimant; certificate of reasonable cause; liability for wrongful seizure
Upon the entry of judgment for the claimant in any proceeding to condemn or forfeit property seized
under any Act of Congress, such property shall be returned forthwith to the claimant or his agent; but if
it appears that there was reasonable cause for the seizure, the court shall cause a proper certificate
thereof to be entered and the claimant shall not, in such case, be entitled to costs, nor shall the person
who made the seizure, nor the prosecutor, be liable to suit or judgment on account of such suit or
prosecution.
SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS
This section is referred to in title 26 section 7328.
I now proceed to IRS cases to prove the above and what Whiting stated about revenue and admiralty
being the same jurisdiction for collection and seizure. He did say that under the war powers "in rem"
proceedings are used. His reasoning was adopted by the Supreme Court in 1863.
United States v. One 1966 Chevrolet Pickup Truck, 56 F.R.D. 450 (1972);
"A proceeding in rem is governed by the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime
Claims, a supplement to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. (hereinafter Supplemental
Rules), See Rule A,Supplemental Rules;"
And this next case, United States of America, Libelant v $3976.62 In Currency, One 1960 Ford Station
Wagon, 37 F.R.D. 564; Key 31. "Although presumably for purpose of obtaining jurisdiction, action for
forfeiture under Internal Revenue Laws is commenced as proceeding in admiralty, after jurisdiction is
obtained proceeding takes on the character of civil action at law, and at least at such stage of
proceedings, Rules of Civil Procedure control."
"On August 14, 1964 a `libel' of information' (see Supreme Court Admiralty Rule 21; 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1355; 26 U.S.C. 7323) was filed by the United States Attorney."Ibid 565.
Further proof is gleaned from Benedict on Admiralty 7th Edition.
Quoting from Benedict on Admiralty, 1850;
"Its necessary effect [the Act] was, however, to start the courts on that system of practice, and really to
impose upon them, in admiralty and maritime cases, the civil law practice, as that under which they must
continue to administer justice, even after the expiration of that act, until further provision could be
made."
Section 105 states;
"The Purpose of the Constitutional Grant--The Essential Harmony of the Maritime Law. The grand
purpose of the Constitution was to unify the several States [several meaning separate], the whole
people, in their national, international, and interstate relations and all other purposes were subordinate
and ancillary to this."
Section 123 states;
"The commission to the Governor as Vice-Admiral was very full, granting, in language so clear that it
cannot be misunderstood, an admiralty jurisdiction as wide and beneficial as the most zealous supporters
of the English Admiralty ever claimed for it."
This is the type of court that exists today and why we cannot bring a pure Article of the Bill of Rights
argument in a contract court of the law-merchant in their civil law under war powers act of 1862.
Benedict states at Section 5 that, "the civil law was held to be the law of admiralty, and the course of
proceedings in admiralty, closely resembled
the civil law practice."
Remember, in 28 USC 2461, it states as near as may be to admiralty?
Revenue comes under commerce and is basic to the jurisdiction of the admiralty/maritime court.
Evidence the fact every judge states you can't bring the Constitution in his court. You can't bring in the
Seventh Article of the Bill of Rights. Why? Because it is evident after reading Benedict on The American
Admiralty, Its Jurisdiction and Practice, 1850, Chapter XIII section 195, to wit: "So the seventh
amendment is limited to suits at common law, which does not include either suits of equity, or of
286
admiralty and maritime jurisdiction".
The American people are not under common law or any other law but Emergency War Powers.
American Ins. Co. v Canter, 1 Pet. 511, 545 (1828). "A case in admiralty does not, in fact, arise under
the Constitution or Laws of the United States."
Most people would not understand why such a case would not come under the Constitution. The reason
being when in war, and proceeding in admiralty, International law and treaty law takes over. The Law of
Nations, which is International law, rules over the Constitutions. One of the International laws is
that of Treaty with the United Nations. So try as you might to oust the United States from the UN
treaty, as long as we are the enemy and the United States the belligerent power running the show you
will never, under international law that we live under, obtain your goals.
Benedict states at section 204; "In such cases, the question before the court, is not whether the court has
jurisdiction, but whether the party have right; it is not a question in abatement, but a question of the
merits of the action. `If the cause is a maritime cause, subject to admiralty cognizance, jurisdiction is
complete over the person as well as over the ship. It must in its nature be complete, for it cannot be
confined to one of the remedies on the contract, when the contract itself is within its cognizance'." The
quote he used is from 12 Wheat 460; 7 Howard 729 Boyd's proceedings.
Whether the party have the right? Yes. As enemies of the State, you have no rights that you call
unalienable. And the case for that is called, The Sally, 8 Cranch 382, 384, wherein the court stated; "By
the general law of prize, property engaged in the illegal intercourse with the enemy is deemed enemy
property. It is of no consequence whether it belong to an ally or a citizen; the traffic stamps it with a
hostile character, and attaches to it all the penal consequences of enemy ownership".
In The Shark, (1862)page 218 the court states, "All persons doing business with the enemy, whether
citizens of the United States or citizens of the other belligerent nation or neutrals, are as to their
property to be deemed enemies."Therefore, with all this knowledge as to why you are deemed the
enemy, this case called The Julia, (1813) falls right into what Whiting stated in 1864 about the enemy
having no rights. "No contract is considered valid as between enemies, at least so far as to give them a
remedy in the courts of either government, and they have, in the language of the civil law, no ability to
sustain a persona standi in judicio."
Now you know why people charged under the revenue laws that are in court have a 99 percent chance
of losing; have no right to present the law or regulations to the jury, as that has been eliminated slowly
since 1867; to claim and show a defense; are 99 percent of the time denied all motions that would have
to be ruled in their favor. AND, when having a claim against the United States they always institute a
Rule 12(b)(6), that claims YOU have not stated a cause in which relief can be granted. This is so
because the enemy in rebellion, the cash cow of the United States, the so called "tax protestor", can
never overcome. The IRS can seize property of all types without any due process in the courts before
they take the property as explained in Whitings Book continued after you read this endnote. Also, for
those people who believe that if you revoke all signatures and get out of banking and social security, get
rid of all contracts with the government that you are free. Not so, because you are still the neutral under
the emergency (war) powers act. You could claim to be the highest exhalted ruler from another country,
but as long as you stay in this country under the belligerent power, you are the subject of this
government. This is a fact that no one can deny. The "neutral" speaks to the fact that your presence in
the state or country makes you an enemy, so to argue you are not subject, because you have removed
yourself from banking or social security, holds no water to the conqueror holding
the guns, or I might add to international law.
Yes, the habeas corpus is a PRIVILEGE and NOT a right, and it is granted by government in time of
peace. It can and has, for all intents and purposes, been suspended. This is evident by the fact that
between 1957 and about 1990 only 3 percent of all habeas corpus have been granted. Now, all this
material so far has proven one thing. That is, the people of America who thought they were sovereign;
who thought government was their servant; who thought the Constitution was their doing; who thought
the Bill of Rights were written for them; who thought the constitution was there to protect them; who
287
thought that white citizens were always above the blacks; who thought the term "citizen" did
not show up until after the Fourteenth Amendment; who never realized that blacks voted, held office,
held military commissions before the 1787 Constitution; who did not realize that the 1787 Constitution
enslaved the black people by considering them property by the institution of Article I, Section 2, Clause
3; who thought the constitution was over all treaty law or International law of nations; who thought we
were living in times of peace; who do not believe they are considered "public" enemies; who believe that
they are free, are sorely mistaken. So let us move along in the Book and destroy some more myths. One
has to remember that this Book was written during Civil war and talks about military law, the principles
apply to this very day, even though you do not see uniformed officers behind the desks of the alphabet
agencies of government, although you do see quasi military presence in the form of a police officer that
is termed "law enforcement." They are no longer peace officers.
Turning to Whiting's separate section Titled, The Return of the Rebellious States to the Union, we see
the mindset of government, our enemy, as so aptly stated by Albert J. Nock in his book, Our Enemy, The
State. It shows that the people of the South and the North became enemies of the United States, AKA
Congress, because the southern states could not be admitted back into the Union and have disabilities
different than the north. So Congress over rode President Johnsons veto of the war powers after
Johnson decreed the war powers over, and then Congress declared that in order to have all states on
equal footing they would continue the emergency war powers to include all the people in
the States of the Union to be enemies, subject to the confiscation acts of 12 Stat 319. The section on
Reconstruction of the Union shows that the southern States were forced into submitting to the United
States, thereby showing, for all to see, that the Constitution is of "No Authority" as stated by eminent
Jurist Lysander Spooner.
The South had sought to be free from the Union as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and
the Constitution, that whenever government ceased to be what it was supposed to be, they had the right
to secede. Such was not the case and shows the fraud of the Constitution for what it is. For if the abuses
could not be remedied the South sought to only do what the Constitution stated, and that was to form a
new government, but not touch the present government of the North. They did not want to overthrow
the old government. This also proves that the Treaty of 1783 still is supreme over the Constitution
which the treaty created. This I brought forth in my book The New History of America by quoting from
the First Circuit Court of the United States operating in North Carolina in 1796. Before closing Part one
I might add that the emergency power can continue absent any war that started it. The case for one to
read on this is Woods v Miller, 333 U.S. 138; 68 S. Ct. 421; 92 Led 596 (1948). This dealt with the rent
control act that was declared unconstitutional by the District court. It was appealed directly to the
Supreme court and it reversed the District courts judgement, declaring that because although the war
was over the rent act was a direct and immediate cause when invoking the war powers/Emergency
powers of Congress and therefore was constitutional and could continue as it likened it to "police
power". Justice Jackson concurring stated, "I think we can hardly deny that the war power is a valid
ground for federal rent control now as it has been at anytime. We still are technically in a state of war."
Therefore, the emergency powers invoked by the Congress in the Reconstruction Acts and Roosevelts
Emergency Powers Acts are still "technically" alive and well and have never been repealed by Congress.
One more nail in the coffin of the MYTH that the common man is Sovereign is the fact that when the
case of Ex parte Milligan was heard it was a conclusion that the Court would find the Reconstruction
Acts unconstitutional because of the establishment of the military government throughout the South.
The court did not. Then two years later the case of Ex Parte McCardle came before the Supreme Court.
McCardle was a southern editor of a Newspaper. He used the statute designed, ironically, to protect the
rights of Negroes and federal officers in the South. The Court unanimously agreed that the statute gave
it jurisdiction in McCardles case. Then with McCardle's case already concluded, Congress undertook to
block a decision of the Court by repealing the law by which jurisdiction to hear McCardles appeal had
been conferred. The repeal occurred and McCardle lost. What happened is that Over 100 years since Ex
parte McCardle, the action of the Congress in lopping off of the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme
288
Court in order to forestall an unwanted decision has been generally regarded as a regrettable legislative
assault upon the independence of the Court-- a precedent which it was hoped would not be followed.
This shows the power that Congress and the President has under the war powers. This is why there is no
separation of the departments of government under emergency rule. This is why the Supreme Court of
today, cannot rule against the emergency war powers in effect. The Court is controlled by Congress,
CONSTITUTIONALLY, under the War Powers Clause of the Constitution. I would say, in conclusion,
of Part one, that the Congress has continued its Sovereignty by invoking the War Powers and
Reconstruction Acts starting March 2, 1867, so that they may invade and strip the rights of the people
so as to gain more control than they had in time of peace under the Constitution. The
Congress are the ultimate administrators of not only the District Courts in time of peace, but has the
control of the allegedly separate branch called the Supreme Court under War Powers. This only further
proves that the common man was never a Sovereign to begin with, despite all the hoopla and conjecture
that he is. By the term "common man" it is meant the man on the street, the laborer. Washington,
Jefferson, Hamilton, John Jay, etc., etc, were not the "common man". They were aristocracy, had money,
had land, all had holding in the mother country, England, and were what was called the landed people.
They were the People spoken of in "We the People" in the preamble, not the Acommon man".
The fact that grammatically the third word in a sentence, being capitalized, denote a specific class when
it is capitalized, therefore, People did not include the "common man".
If indeed it meant all the people it would have read "We the people". Pull any English Grammar book
and you will see for yourselves what I say is correct. The lip service and spin doctors have done a
wonderful job of hiding the true character of the common man for all these years, that being, he is a
subject here in America, the same as he was a subject under the Crown, only here he is called a "citizen".
There is no difference.
DOES PROHIBITION CAUSE MORE HARM THAN MARIJUANA?
Recently, narcotics officers raided the house of a suspected marijuana dealer in Wisconsin. The unarmed
suspect, who offered no resistance, was shot to death in front of his 7-year-old son. His crime?
Possession of 1 ounce of marijuana. In Oklahoma, a wheelchair-bound paraplegic who used medicinal
marijuana to control muscle spasms caused by his broken back was sentenced to 10 years in prison. His
crime? Possession of 2 ounces of marijuana. Another Oklahoma man is serving 75 years in prison for
growing only 5 marijuana plants. (Prohibition is the number one cause of America's exploding prison
population. Many non-violent drug offenders are now serving longer prison sentences than murderers,
rapists, and other violent criminals. It costs taxpayers $30,000 per year to imprison just one non-violent
drug offender. Politicians are spending billions of tax dollars to build new prisons and jails so more and
more non-violent drug offenders can be warehoused. Meanwhile, funding for education and other
services are being strained.
Reducing drug abuse is a desirable goal, but law enforcement methods used to obtain that goal are
counterproductive. Prohibition costs billions to enforce, creates a black market that generates violence
and corruption, and makes criminals out of millions of productive and harmless adults. Adult use of
alcohol and tobacco is accepted, but adult use of marijuana is considered criminal behavior. Why?
The main rationalization for Prohibition is to keep marijuana away from children. That rationalization
does not reflect reality. Several surveys reveal that teenagers can obtain marijuana easier than they can
obtain the legal drugs of beer or wine. In Holland, where sale of marijuana to adults is openly accepted,
the percentage of teenagers using marijuana is less than half that of American teenagers. Because
America's marijuana trade is totally unregulated, marijuana dealers are on the streets selling to anybody--
especially teenagers. Regulating marijuana like wine would put street dealers out of business, would
make marijuana dealers pay taxes, and would restrict sales to adults only. Prohibition does not make
it difficult for teenagers to obtain marijuana. Tougher marijuana laws have not reduced marijuana use.
Marijuana use has increasedevery single year since 1991.
In 1937 (the last year that marijuana was legal) only 100,000 Americans used marijuana. Now that
marijuana is illegal, 30 million Americans use marijuana, and marijuana is easily available to anybody
289
who wants it--including children and prison inmates. 600,000 Americans are arrested for marijuana
violations every year and thousands of them are sent to jail or prison, where many of them can still
obtain drugs. The government can't even keep drugs out of its own prisons, yet the politicians keep
telling us they can rid the entire nation of marijuana by spending more tax dollars. The government now
spends $15 billion every year (a 1,500% increase since 1980) waging a war on marijuana smokers--a
war that has lasted 60 years and is impossible to win. Another $5 billion per year is lost in tax revenue
that could be generated if marijuana was regulated and taxed like wine.
For all practical purposes, Marijuana Prohibition is a $15-billion-per-year government subsidy for drug
traffickers, organized crime, and street dealers. Because the government prohibits well-regulated liquor
stores from selling marijuana, the government ensures that organized crime and street dealers will
flourish. Prohibition escalates violence and corruption as mobsters, street gangs, and thugs fight for
control of the marijuana trade. Just as Alcohol Prohibition escalated violence and corruption during the
1920s, Marijuana Prohibition does the same today.
Once all the facts are known, it becomes clear that America's marijuana laws need reform. This issue
must be openly debated using only the facts. Groundless claims, meaningless statistics, and exaggerated
scare stories that have been peddled by politicians and prohibitionists for the last 60 years must be
rejected.
ON THE LEGAL FRAUD PERPETRATED ON ALL AMERICANS
Let's get right to the point. The courts only recognize two classes of people in the United States today.
DEBTORS AND CREDITORS
The concept and status of DEBTORS AND CREDITORS is very important for you to understand.
Every legal action where you are brought before the court: e.g. traffic ticket, property dispute or
permits, income tax, credit cards, bank loans or anything else they might dream up to charge you where
you find yourself in front of a court - IT IS AN EQUITY COURT, administering commercial law having
a debtor/creditor law as the controlling law. Today, we have an equity court but not an equity court as
referred to in the Constitution of the U.S. or any of the legal documents before 1938.
All the courts of this once great land have been changed starting with the Supreme Court decision of
1938 in Erie R.R. v. Thompkins, 304 U.S 64 (1938) give you background which led to this decision.
Some of this information is from the Ben Freeman tapes of 1989. They are excellent tapes if you have
them. Ben used to talk about "legislative democracy." I couldn't find a definition for legislative
democracy. It bothered me. However, by listening to his tapes as well as other tapes. I began to see the
fraud that is being perpetrated on all of us Americans. Please understand that this fraud is a 24 hour, 7
days a week, year after year continuous fraud. It doesn't happen just once in a while. This fraud is
constantly upon you all your life. Whether you are aware of it or not, this fraud is perpetually and
incessantly upon you and your family.
U.S. Inc. Goes To Geneva 1930's
In order for you to understand just how this fraud works, you need to know the history of its inception.
It goes like this: from 1928 - 1932 there were five years of Geneva conventions. The nations of the
world met in Geneva, Switzerland for 5 continuous years in order to set up what would be the policy of
all the participating countries. During the year of 1930 the U.S., Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy,
Spain, Portugal, etc. all declared bankruptcy. If you try to look up the 1930 minutes, you will not find
them because they don't publish this particular volume. If you try to find the 1930 volume which
contains the minutes of what happened, you will probably not find it. This volume has been pulled out of
circulation or is hidden in the library and is very hard to find. This volume contains the evidence of the
bankruptcy. Going into 1932, they stopped meeting in Geneva. In 1932 Franklin Roosevelt came into
power as President of the United States. Roosevelt's job was to put into place and administer the
bankruptcy that had been declared two years earlier. The corporate government needed a key Supreme
Court decision. The corporate United States government had to have a legal case on the books to set the
stage for recognizing, implementing and supporting the bankruptcy. Now, this doesn't mean the
290
bankruptcy wasn't implemented before 1938 with the Erie RR v. Thompkins decision. The bankruptcy
started in 1930-1931. The bankruptcy definitely started when Roosevelt came into office. He was sworn
in during the month of January, 1933. He started right away in the bankruptcy with what is known as the
"The Banking Holiday," and proceeded in pulling in gold coin out of circulation. That was the beginning
of the United States Public Policy for bankruptcy.
Roosevelt Stacks Supreme Court
It is a known historical fact that during 1933 and 1937-1938, there was a big fight between Roosevelt
and the Supreme Court Justices. Roosevelt tried to stack the Supreme Court with a bunch of his pals.
Roosevelt tried to enlarge the number of Justices and he tried to change the slant of the Justices. The
corporate United States had to have one Supreme Court case which would support their bankruptcy
problem.
Their was resistance to Roosevelt's court stacking efforts. Some of the Justices tried to warn us that
Roosevelt was tampering with the law and with the courts. Roosevelt was trying to see to it that prior
decisions of the court were overturned. He was trying to bring in a new order, a new procedure for the
law of the land.
The "Mother Corporation" Goes Bankrupt
A bankruptcy case was needed on the books to legitimize the fact that the corporate U.S. had already
declared bankruptcy! This bankruptcy was effectuated by compact that the corporate several states had
with the corporate government (Corporate Capitol of the several corporate states). This compact tied
the corporate several states to corporate Washington, D.C. (the headquarters of the corporation called
"The United States"). Since the United States Corporation, having established it headquarters within the
District of Columbia, declared itself to be in the state of bankruptcy, it automatically declared
bankruptcy for all its subsidiaries who were effectively connected corporate members (who happened to
be the corporate state governments of the Union). The corporate state governments didn't have to vote
on the bankruptcy. The bankruptcy automatically became effective by reason of Compact/Agreement
between each of the corporate state governments and THE MOTHER CORPORATION. (Note: The
writer has taken the liberty of using the term "Mother Corporation" to communicate the interconnected
power of the corporate Federal government relative to her associated corporate States. It is my
understanding that the States created the Federal Government, however, for all practical purposes, the
Federal Government has taken control of her "Creators," the States.) She has become a beast out of
control for power. She has for her trade names the following: "United States",
"U.S.", "U.S.A.", "United States of America", Washington, D.C., District of Columbia, Feds, Federal
Government. She has her own U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Parks, Post Office, etc., etc., etc.
Because she is claiming to be bankrupt, she freely gives her land, her personnel, and the money she
steals from the Americans via the I.R.S. and her state corporations, to the United Nations and the
International Bankers as payment for her debt. The UN and the International Bankers use this money
and services for various world wide projects to include war. War is an extremely lucrative business for
the bankers of the New World Order. Loans for destruction. Loans for re-construction. Loans for
controlling people on her world property.
U.S. Inc. Declares Bankruptcy
The corporate U.S., then, is the head corporate member, who met at Geneva, to decide for all its
corporate body members. The corporate representatives of corporate several states were not in
attendance. If the states had their own power to declare bankruptcy regardless of whether Washington
D.C. declared bankruptcy or not, then the several states would have been represented at Geneva. The
several states of America were not represented. Consequently, whatever Washington D.C. agree to at
Geneva was passed on automatically, via compact to the several corporate states as a group, association,
corporation or as a club member, they all agreed and declared bankruptcy as one government corporate
group in 1938. The several states only needed a representative in Geneva by way of the U.S. in
Washington, D.C. The delegates of the corporate United States attended the meetings and spoke for the
several corporate states as well as for the mother corporation located in Washington, D.C., the seat and
291
headquarters of the Federal Corporate Government. And, presto BANKRUPTCY was declared for all.
From 1930 to 1938 the states could not enact any law or decide any case that would go against the
Federal Government. The case had to come down from the Federal level so that the states would rely on
the Federal decision and use this decision as justification for the bankruptcy process within the states.
Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Emerges as the Law of the Land
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/overview.html
By 1938 the corporate Federal Government had the true bankruptcy case they had been looking for.
Now, the bankruptcy that had been declared back in 1930 could be up-held and administered. That's why
the Supreme Court had to be stacked and made corrupt from within. The new players on the Supreme
Court fully understood that they had to destroy all other case law that had been established prior to
1938. The Federal Government had to have a case to destroy all precedence, all appearance, and even
the statute of law itself. That is, the Statutes at Large had to be perverted. They finally got their case in
Erie R.R. v. Thompkins. It was right after that case that the American Law Institute and the National
Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws listed right in the front of the Uniform
Commercial Code, began creating the Uniform Commercial Code that is on our backs today. Let us
quote directly from the preface of the 1990 Official Text of the Uniform Commercial Code 12th edition.
The Code was originally approved by its sponsors and the American Bar Association in 1952, and was
revised in 1958 to incorporate a number of changes that had been recommended by the New York Law
Revision Commission and other agencies. Subsequent amendments that were deemed desirable in the
light of experience under the Code were approved by the Permanent Editorial Board in 1962 and 1966.
The above named groups and associations of private lawyers got together and started working on the
Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). It was somewhere between 1930 and 1940, I don't recall, but by the
early 40's and during the war, this committee was working to form the UCC and got it ready to put on
the market. The UCC is the law merchant's code for the administration of the bankruptcy. The UCC is
now the new law of the land as far as the courts are concerned. This Legal Committee of lawyers put
everything; Negotiable Instruments, Security, Sales, Contracts/Agreements, and the whole mess under
the UCC. That's where the "Uniform" word comes from. It means it was uniform from state to state as
well as being uniform with the District of Columbia. It doesn't mean you didn't have the uniform
instrument laws on the books before this time. It means the laws were not uniform from state to state.
By the middle 1960's, every state had passed the UCC into law. The states had no choice but to adopt
the newly formed Uniform Commercial Code as the law of the land. The states fully understood they
had to administrate bankruptcy.
Washington D.C. adopted the Uniform Commercial Code in 1963, just six weeks or so after Kennedy
was killed.
Your Lawyer's Secret Oath?
What was the effect and the significance of the Erie RR. v. Thompkins case decision of 1938? The
significance is that since the Erie decision, no cases are allowed to be cited that are prior to 1939. There
can be no mixing of the old law with the new law. The lawyers (who were members of the American Bar
Association, were and are currently under and controlled by the Lawyer's Guild of Great Britain)
created, formed and implemented the new bankruptcy law. The American Bar Association is a franchise
of the Lawyer's Guild of Great Britain. Since the Erie RR. v. Thompkins case was decided; the practice
of law in this country was never again to be the same.
It has been reported (source unknown to the writer) that every lawyer in existence and every lawyer
coming up has to take a SECRET OATH to support the bankruptcy. This seems to make sense after
read about Mr. Sweet's CASE FILE DISAPPEARANCE discussed below. There is more to it. Not only
do they promise to support the bankruptcy, but the lawyers and judges also promise never to reveal who
the true creditor party is in the bankruptcy proceedings. In court, there is never identification and
appearance of the true character and principal of the proceedings. This is where you can get them for
not making an appearance in court. If there is no appearance of the true party to the action, than there is
no way the defendant is able to know the true NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACTION. You are
292
never told the true NATURE AND THE CAUSE OF WHY YOU ARE IN FRONT OF THEIR COURT.
The court is forbidden to tell you that information. That's why, if you question the true nature and cause,
the judge will say, "It's not my job to tell you. You are not retaining me as an attorney and I can't give
you legal advice from the bench. I suggest you hire a lawyer."
Hire a Lawyer?
The problem here is, if you hire a lawyer, who is pledged not to reveal the true nature and cause. How
will you ever find out the nature and cause? You won't! Why? If the true nature and cause of the action
against you is revealed, it will expose the real creditor from whom this action and cause came. In other
words, they will have to name the TRUE creditor. The true creditor will have to state the nature and
cause. The true creditor will have to say, "It's a bankruptcy proceeding." That declaration then opens the
door for you to question, "Who the hell are you? How did you get attached to my back and by what
vehicle did I promise to become a debtor to you?" In this country, the courts on every level from the
justice of the peace level all the way up - even into the International Law arena (called the World Court),
are administrating the bankruptcy and are pledged not to reveal who the true creditors really are and
how you personally became pledged as a party or participant to the corporate United States debt.
What would really kill these people off, would be to compel the International Bankers to send a lawyer
to the courtroom and present himself as the attorney for the true creditor (the International Bankers).
Then have the attorney put into the record the true nature and cause of the proceedings against you on
that particular day.
The International Banksters told these various countries that they were now in a state of bankruptcy.
The countries had been taken over by the creditor/bankers. And there was no choice, but for all these
participating countries to declare bankruptcy. If they didn't agree to declare bankruptcy, the banksters
threatened to collapse the economies and thereby put the countries back into the depression like the one
from which they were just emerging. The banksters made an offer they couldn't refuse!
To review and elaborate: In 1930 there was a world wide depression. The bankers said, "Look. You can
do it either of two ways. The easy way or the hard way. You just accept the bankruptcy and we'll let you
out of the depression. If you don't, you're on your own." So all the countries involved agreed, because
they realized that the International banksters had them by the throat. The countries therefore agreed that
over a period of several years they would pass statutes and legislation for the implantation of the
bankruptcy in favor of the International banksters.
Now, i would say that the key banksters were Rothchild and family and their agents by way of
Rockefeller, by way of the Federal Reserve Banksters. Who were more specifically involved as key
banksters and their agents is pure conjure on my part but it really doesn't matter at this point. The point
is, there was an international bankruptcy and an international conspiracy to cover it up. There was a
banking creditor who made the offer the countries accepted the offer in order to enable the
representative countries to continue without revolution and to allow the politicians to remain
comfortably in place. Under a delusion of solvency the countries were allowed to continue to operate as
though they were solvent while in fact the representative countries were bankrupt.
The Snare, The bankruptcy scheme was/is an extremely clever and diabolical plan. How did they
possibly pull this scheme off in the area of real estate, the same way they did it in the area of Federal
Income Taxes. These Foreign banksters simply and deceptively devised ways and means to con you into
declaring yourself a "CITIZEN" or a "RESIDENT" of the corporate U.S. Remember the corporate
United States is Bankrupt per agreement and public policy. After you have been tricked into claiming
you are one of their corporate United States Citizens, you are given a Social Security Number which ties
you to certain meager "benefits" and "privileges." Then, the banksters con your employer to function as
an unpaid tax collector to con you into filling out their W-4 intangible property gift forms and 1040
voluntary agreements. These slick paper agreement establishes your "voluntary" indebtedness to the
bankster creditor.
293
If at any time you decide to balk at this scheme, because you don't like it, the real creditor never has to
make an appearance in court to list the true nature and cause of action which is being brought against
you. You end up dealing with an agency. The agency can conveniently grant itself immunity from
prosecution because all it is doing (without your knowledge, of course) is administrating the bankruptcy
which the government agreed per the Geneva meetings.
The court system never lets you put the original creditor on the courtroom stand, so you can ask him
how he got attached to your back. The system is set up in such a way that the TRUE CREDITOR IS
PROTECTED and never has to make an appearance and never has to answer any of your questions or
produce documents. Therefore, the true creditor never has to produce the law that gives him the right to
pledge you (your body and labor) in indebtedness (bondage/servitude). Why? Because the Geneva
agreement in 1930 was done by treaty. The bankruptcy was not done by legislation. The agreement
came first; signed in secrecy. THEN Congress began to pass legislation to fulfill the bankruptcy
obligation required by the treaty. Legislation being passed by Congress was henceforth and is thereby
bankruptcy legislation. When cases came before the courts, the courts could make decisions based on
new controlling law of bankruptcy. It had nothing to do with Constitutional rights. Now, any case
brought in is under the new bankruptcy law and is not considered as a true constitutional case. It is now
a bankruptcy case as distinct from, but cleverly disguised as a constitutional case.
The Fraud The members of the Supreme Court, of course, realized what was happening to them and the
system of law. The court was being asked to perform in a creditor, debtor bankrupt proceeding for the
benefit of the bankster creditors. The members of the Supreme Court said, "NO. We will not give you a
bankrupt proceeding decision that you can then enforce against everybody, a decision not only affecting
corporate Washington D.C. but also having effect within the corporate state governments. This, by the
way is fraud. It wouldn't be fraud if the government of corporate Washington D.C. and the government
of the several corporate states declared bankruptcy then let the people know about the bankruptcy.
(Notice when I say corporate "government" I don't mean you and me. You and I are not the corporate
government. The corporate government is the corporate capital of the corporate state. The government
is a neutral government zone known as the capitai ci, the corporate state. The government is where the
corporate state is. It is corporate headquarters. Just like corporate Washington D.C. is the seat of the
corporate Federal Government. The capitai ci, the corporate state is the seat of the corporate state
government. if the corporate Federal Government and her subsidiary corporate state government want
to join forces and declare bankruptcy that's not fraud. This is their corporate business.
However, it is fraud when those two corporate entities declare bankruptcy but do not disclose to you,
me, and every other American, that they have so declared bankruptcy. Further they have not and do not
disclose that their intention is to get you and every other American in this country to pledge to pay off
their corporate debt to their corporate creditors.
The corporate bankruptcy is the corporate state and federal responsibility, not the responsibility of
Americans, the people.
U.S. Inc. is Distinct and Separate
From PRIVATE AMERICANS
"We the People" who created and signed the contract/compact/agreement of, by, and for the
Constitutional Corporation (U.S.); using the trade name of the "United States of America", is a
corporate entity (legal fiction) which is DISTINCT AND SEPARATE from Americans or the
unenfranchised people of America. The private natural American people did not create the corporation
of the United States. The United States Inc. did not create the private natural American people. America
and Americans were in existence prior to the creation of the United States Corporation. The United
States Corporation has located its U.S. headquarters in Washington, D.C. Virginia state (state territory)
gave land to the newly formed United States Corporation. Notice, here, we have a state giving
something of value (land) to the United States. The United States Corporation agreed in the
Constitutional contract, to protect the states. Instead, because of their bankruptcy (Corporate U.S.
Bankruptcy) this particular U.S. corporation has enslaved the states and the people by deception and at
294
the will of their foreign banksters with whom they have been doing business. Our fore fathers gave their
lives and property to prevent enslavement. Today, we are again enslaved.
Private natural American people have been tricked, deceived, and setup to carry the U.S. Inc. perpetual
corporate debt under bankruptcy laws. Every time Americans appear in court, the corporate U.S.
bankruptcy is being administrated against them without their knowledge and lawful consent. That is
FRAUD. All corporate bankruptcy administration is done by "Public Policy" of by and for the Mother
Corporation (U.S. Inc.).
The Mother Corporation's "Public Policy"
The corporate bankruptcy is carried out under the corporate public policy of the corporate Federal
Government in corporate Washington, D.C. The states use state public policy to carry out Federal public
policy of Washington D.C.
Public Policy and only public policy is being administered against you in the corporate courts today. The
public policy that is dictated by all the courts from the smallest to the most powerful courts in the world,
is public policy. This is why I said, in another tape that the Russian people would be enslaved into
indebtedness. What will happen is that it will become public policy in Russia to have the people go into
joint corporate debt. The Russians will be forced to promise to pay these debts. They will be forced to
pay off on those corporate debts. Corporate Public Policy is the crux of the whole bankruptcy
implementation. Corporate Public Policy is forever a Corporate Public Policy and the laws that have
been passed since 1938 are all corporate public policy laws dealing only with corporate public policy.
Understand that U.S. corporate public policy is not an American public policy. The public policy OF
(belonging to) the United States corporation. This U.S. corporate bankruptcy public policy is not OF
(belonging to) America, the Republic.
The Erie RR. v. Thompkins 1938 case was a decision based upon public policy. All decisions at any level
since 1938 have been public policy decisions. All statutes, rules, regulations, and procedures that have
been passed, whether civil or criminal, whether it is Federal or State, have all been passed to implement
the public policy of bankruptcy. Since 1933, when F.D.R. came in office, he brought in public policy. He
established that it was the public policy of the government to call in all the gold. It was the public policy
of the Government in Washington, D.C. (the Federal Government) to give our government assistance.
Public policy operates the same within the states. All Federal court
decisions can only be handed down if the states support Federal public policy. The state legal system
must be compatible with the Federal legal system.
The Monkey - Wrench
This is why, when people like us go to court without being represented by a lawyer, we throw a
monkey-wrench into the corporate administrative proceedings. Why? Because all public policy
corporate lawyers are pledged to up-hold public policy, which is the corporate U.S. administration of
their corporate bankruptcy. That's why you'll find stamped on many if not all our briefs,
"THIS CASE IS NOT TO BE CITED IN ANY OTHER CASE AND IS NOT TO BE REPORTED IN
ANY COURTS."
The reason for this notation is that when we go in to defend ourselves or file a claim we're not
supporting the corporate bankruptcy administration and procedure. The arguments we put forth predate
1938. We come in with Constitutional law, etc. All these early cases support our rights not to be in
bankruptcy. However, the corporate court, lawyers, and judges have promised to give no judicial
recognition of any case before 1938.
The International Banksters' Corporate Plantation U.S.A. Style
Before 1938, the law was not a public policy law. All these old cases were not public law deciding cases.
Today, the cases are all decided under corporate public policy. The public policy exists in order to
administer the bankruptcy for the benefit of the bankster creditors and to protect the bankster creditor.
Corporate public policy can allow the creditor to say to the corporate legislatures, "I want a law passed
requiring my debtors to wear seat belts. Why? Because I want to be able to milk my debtors for the
longest period possible." it doesn't behoove the creditor to allow all of his labor producing debtors to die
295
at an average age of 30 years. What would happen to the banksters' lending, interest, penalties, increase,
repayment etc. on the entire funding and lending process if the average American life span was only 30
years? Why, the bankers would have to have 2 1/2 times the current consumer population to equal their
current take. The banksters would need (instead of 250 million Americans) 600 million or even more.
Maybe the banksters would need 2 Billion Americans because the individual can't contract for debt until
he/she is 18 or 21 years of age. Therefore, if the average life span is only a 30 year period, the creditor
could collect on the debt for only 12 years.
Now, if the banksters can just get people to live an average of 70 years you are talking a whopping 50
years of indebtedness for which they contract and for which they are forced to pay back with
usury/interest. With this situation, the bankster creditor can now float loans worth 50 years of potential
indebtedness and its payoff with interest in the name of the people, as opposed to 9 to 12 years. The
creditors and their property and their people are well taken care of.
The creditor doesn't want the population to decrease per say, unless, it is convenient for the debtor to
run up debts in anther’s name and then liquidate that debtor or that group of debtor people.
For example let's consider the AIDS problem today among the black people. What better group to inject
AIDS into than the black people? Read the Stracker Memorandum on AIDS and the World Health
Organization connection. This documents their tainted vaccination program in Africa and elsewhere.
Why not kill them off? Don't you understand that the blacks as a whole have absorbed all the debt that
they can? The blacks have reached the max of the debt that they can carry. In fact, they have gone over
their limit to pay back. They are now heavily into welfare, public housing,
medicaid, medicare, food stamps, etc. Now, the situation is that instead of paying off the creditor, they
have become a drain on the creditor. The creditor must now pay them to live and take care of them.
What creditor in his right mind wants to spend money on a bunch of people from whom he can't collect
any revenue? The corporate public policy of the corporate United States and the states and the county
and of the cities are that YOU must take care of these people. You must provide them with welfare, etc.
Why? Because when you, as a member of the corporate body politic allow laws to be passed which says
the minorities must be taken care of; then the corporate legislature can say the public policy is that the
people want these people taken care of. Therefore, when given the chance, the legislature can say the
public policy is that the people want these blacks and poor whites to be taken care of and given a
chance, therefore, we must raise taxes to fund all these benefits, privileges and opportunities. This is
what these people need to make them socially, politically, and economically equal with every one else.
The legislatures have passed all kinds of statutes providing for hugh indebtedness and they float the
indebtedness off your backs because you have never gone in to challenge them; telling them that it is not
your public policy to assume the debts of other people. On the contrary, all the court decisions coming
out, indicate it is the corporate public policy and it is your willingness to support the corporate public
policy to pay off these debts. Remember, "public" means of and for the corporate Government. It does
not mean of and for private people. "Public" means corporate government. It is corporate government
policy. When they talk about public debt, they are talking about corporate government debt and your
presumed pledge against this corporate created debt.
The Real Estate Snare How do they work this scheme in the area of real estate? These bankster creeps
have made an agreement that it is corporate public policy, that all land (property) be pledged to the
creditor to satisfy the debt of the bankruptcy, which the creditor claims under bankruptcy. They get
away with this the sam way they get away with any other case that is brought before the court, whether
it is a traffic ticket, IRS, or whatever. Here is how it works. You have signed instruments giving
information and jurisdiction to the banksters through their agents. The instruments (forms) you signed
include, but are not limited to the following: social security registration, use of the social security
number, IRS forms, driver license, traffic citation, jury duty, voter registration, using their address, zip
code, U.S. postal service, a deed, a mortgage application, etc. etc. The banksters then use that
instrument (document) under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) as a contract/agreement. These
documents are considered promissory contract where you promise to perform. This scheme involves
296
you, without you ever becoming directly in contact or in contract with the true creditor. What's more,
you are never informed as to whom the true creditor is and it is never divulged to you the true nature
and the true cause of the paperwork that you are filling out.
If you will examine your real estate deed, you will find that you promised to pay taxes to the corporate
government. On property you originally acquired through a mortgage, you will notice that the bank
never promised to pay taxes. You did. The corporate government at all levels never promised to pay
taxes to the creditor. You did. In tax and collection problems relating to real estate being enforced
against you, you will notice that there is no mention in the mortgage or the deed stating the true nature
and cause of the action.
Since you made the promise to perform, you get a bill every year for property taxes. You don't realize
that the only way they can bill you for taxes is through your own stupidity of AGREEING to pay the
tax. You volunteered. They took advantage of you, conning you to promise to pay property taxes. When
they send you their bill, they are coming against you for the collection of the promise you made to the
creditor. Now the creditor on the paperwork appears that it is the local bank. The bank has loaned you
credit. The bank hasn't loaned you anything. It was not their credit to loan. This is why the bank can't
loan credit. There is a credit involved, but not the banks credit. It is the credit of the International
banksters. The international banksters are making you the loan based upon their operation of bankruptcy
claim which they presume to have against you personally as well as your property.
Now, let's say you are not aware of your remedies provided for you within the Uniform Commercial
Code (UCC). The UCC provides or allows you to dishonor the county's presentment of the tax bill. You
don't pay your tax bill. You therefore just sit on it and don't do or say anything. A couple of years go by
and all of a sudden you are being sent letters to pay up what is owed or else in a certain period of time
your property will be taken from you and put up for a tax sale. Now here is what is interesting - If you
don't pay your tax bill, and they contact you asking you to pay it and you don't pay it, they will declare
you in default. It is based on that default as provided in the UCC that they sell your property for the tax
(rent).
However, the county never goes into court to put into the record the identification of the real creditor.
And the county does not state the true nature and cause of the action against you (bankruptcy action
disguised as a tax action). Why? Because, under bankruptcy implementation, they have developed a
legal procedure which is based upon YOUR PROMISE TO PAY. The procedure provides that they don't
have to come to the court to get a court order authorizing the sale of your property. Therefore, the real
creditor never makes an appearance in court. The reality is, you are denied any possibility of appearing
in court to exercise your right to challenge the creditor. To ask if he became the creditor under "public
policy." To ask if it is under "public policy," just what is "public policy"? And how did you (as an
international banker) become "creditor" to me and everyone else in this country (American people).
They don't want you to ask the real creditor (the International Banksters), to PRODUCE THE
DOCUMENTS upon which your personal debt is established. If they were forced to go into court, they
would have to produce the deed or mortgage showing you KNOWINGLY, WILLINGLY, and
VOLUNTARILY promised to pay the corporate public debt. You did not KNOWINGLY, WILLINGLY,
and VOLUNTARILY promise to pay any U.S. Corporate Bankruptcy obligation made in the 1930's.
This would, of course, expose their racket. The fact is, that, there was absolutely no debt connected to
you until you agreed to it through their deception and fraud. The deception in a broader sense,
permeates the education system and the new media, etc., to sell you on the idea that you are a statutory
"U.S. Citizen" and "resident of the United States."(INCORPORATED). YOUR SIGNATURE IS YOUR
MOST VALUABLE PROPERTY
Your "property" is pledged for the rest of your life upon your signature and your promise to perform is
pledged into perpetual debt. The banksters don't even bother to go to court. They leave it up to the
agencies to administer the agency corporate public policy. It is the public policy of that agency to bill
you on your promise to perform. If you don't pay, they follow up on the public policy on notice of
default and give you one more chance to pay. Then they proceed to sell the property at a tax auction.
297
They never go to court or appear in court to back up their claim against you. Did any of your
government licensed and controlled teachers ever stress THAT YOUR SIGNATURE IS YOUR MOST
VALUABLE PERSONAL PROPERTY? Did your government teachers ever tell you, that any time you
sign any document, you should sign it "without prejudice", or with "All Rights Reserved" above your
signature. This means you are reserving you God given unalienable rights (rights which cannot be
transferred) and all other rights for which your fore fathers died. The Corporate U.S. Government
provides, or at least pretends to provide, for this reservation of rights under the Uniform Commercial
Code (UCC) at 1-207 and 1-103. You need more information in this area. It is not in the best interest of
the United States Corporate "Public" schools to teach you about their bankruptcy proceedings and how
they have set the snare to COMPEL YOU INTO PAYING THEIR DEBT. The Corporate "Public"
schools are strictly designed for their Corporate citizens/subjects. That is, the Corporate U.S. Public
School citizens. Notice all the emphasis on being a "good" citizen.
Basically all their teachers and their students are trained to produce labor and material in exchange for
valueless green paper called "money." It is not money, it functions "AS" money. Lawful money must be
backed by something of value.
Banksters take your labor, services, and material (homes, cars, farms, etc.) in exchange for their
valueless corporate paper. This paper is backed only by the "full faith and confidence of the United
States Government" (THE MOTHER CORPORATION). I do not have faith of confidence in the U.S.
BANKRUPT CORPORATE GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATORS WHO HAVE PERVERTED
THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL CHARTER, enslaving the sovereign American people into THEIR
bankruptcy obligations. Their fraudulent money laundering process promotes your payment on the
corporate government's bankruptcy debt. This debt is mathematically impossible to pay off. You and
your family are in continual financial bondage to the international banksters. They love it so! Black's
Law Dictionary 1990, defines "Money Changers" as: - business of a banker....today handled by the
international departments of banks."
Let me think for a moment, what did Christ do to the "Money Changers"? Oh, Yes, he severely
interfered with their activity. Three days later Christ was crucified. Lincoln was killed for interfering with
the money chargers. Kennedy was slaughtered for interfering with the money changes.
The Brother's Case
In my brother's case he was never in default as he never made the promise in the common law deed to
pay taxes, therefore, the man who bought the property is moving against my brother through an attorney
who is claiming that my brother never redeemed the property. His attorney had followed procedure by
publishing the property tax notice in the newspaper for three printings. Now they show up in court to
get the court to declare default. After a default judgment, the attorney's client then has right to the
property.
Now, my brother comes in and challenges this action. The problem is, the man who bought the property,
is trying to claim the property when in fact he is not the original creditor. He is not the person who said
my brother was in default or that he owed a tax in the first place. Now when my brother comes in and
challenges the new buyer, the court rules that the new buyer is not required to produce any documents
in support of his cause. The only documents they are required to produce are the documents related to
procedure of foreclosure. Do you understand? There is no court case where the true creditor has to
make an appearance. You cannot question or challenge the true creditor.
When you do go to court, the person you are allowed to question is the person who bought the
property. THe buyer is not required to produce documents because the only one who would be required
to do so, is the true creditor. Now you are in the position of fighting yourself in court. This is a very
clever way for the creditor to avoid the courts in order to settle the dispute for his claim against you.
This is also very clever way to avoid naming the true claimant; true plaintiff. The true plaintiff is the
international bankster. The international banksters claim they have a claim against my brother's property
because my brother's property has been pledged by the state as collateral for the corporate debts under
the bankruptcy to the international banksters.
298
Once my brother removed his property from their jurisdiction and venue by claiming back all his rights,
titles and interest, the only way that they would be able to stand a chance, would be for the original
claimants (international banksters) to make an appearance through their attorney. Then, for my brother
to require their attorney to place in the record, a statement, identifying the true nature and cause for
their actions. The courts and the attorneys have cleverly avoided this process.
Remember, when you are dealing in bankruptcy, slight of hand, lies, and deception you have to protest
to the head man in all of this action, just like the Watergate tapes. Everybody tried to protect Nixon, the
head dog. It is the same in this bankruptcy scam, they all have to protect the International Banksters.
The proof that this is true is that (1) My brother is now in front of the court of appeals, the attorney for
the people who bought the property, has already said, the buyers should not be required to present the
authority establishing the State of Maryland's authority to tax property and to collect these taxes; This
statement is the tip-off for how they are attempting to protect the International Banksters.
Since the International Banksters never had to appear in court, they never were required to show where
they got the right to pledge everybody's property into the United States corporate debt. The buyer's
attorney says his client should not have to produce and this court should not demand, that he has to
produce. Guess what. The court will agree with the buyer's attorney. They don't have to do it. They have
to protect everybody's butt.
The attorney never cited one case before 1953. The attorney put a lot of cases in his paperwork but
nothing is cited before 1938. Most of the cites are since 1963, when the State of Maryland passed the
UCC. All of the cites were in the 70's and 80's. A few cites were in the late 60's and one in the 50's. This
lawyer knew what was going on. That's why, no matter what happens, someone in the court will stamp
on the paperwork that this case can not be cited in other cases.
This case is not to be reported in the legal reports.
The Cover-up
There was a deal struck that, if any person who doesn't have a lawyer to bring a case before the courts,
and this person proves the fraud, and speaks the truth about the fraud, the courts are compelled to not
allow the case to be cited or published anywhere. The courts cannot afford to have the case freely
available in the public archives. This would be evidence of the fraud. This is why you can't hire an
attorney. An Attorney is compelled to uphold the fraud.
"Trust Me."
"I'm here to help you."
"I have the governments permission to practice law."
"I'm a Member of the Bar."
The attorney is there for one reason. That reason is to make sure the bankruptcy scam (established by
the corporate public policy of the corporate Federal Government) is upheld. The lawyer's will cite no
cases for you that will go against the bankruptcy in cooperate public policy. Whatever the lawyers do for
you is a bunch of BULL ROAR. The lawyers have to support the bankruptcy and public policy by
supporting it, even at your expense. The lawyers can't go against the corporate Federal Government
statutes implementing, protecting and administrating the bankruptcy.
For all cases cited, those in the U.S. Code or the state annotated code or any other source, you may be
sure that they only selected those cases that support the public policy of bankruptcy. The legal system
has to work that way. After the last 30-4-50 years of cases after cases having been decided based upon
upholding the bankruptcy, how could the legal system possibly allow someone to come into court and
put in the record substantial information and argument to prove the fraud?
Blood in the Streets?
Can you imagine how damaging it be, if they allowed your case to be cited in another case, or if the they
allowed the public to examine a copy of your brief, that discloses evidence of the fraud? This exposure
would render null and void everything for which they have worked so hard. Wouldn't this exposure
make the people mad? Wouldn't this exposure mean there would be blood running in the streets?
Especially in the cities where the poor people have been really taken by this diabolical system. What they
299
are concerned about is that the case never be cited. That goes against the bankruptcy for fear of
exposing the bankruptcy and the people will then pick up their guns and shoot the SOB's.
Mr. Sweet's Case Disappeared!
There is a man, let's say his name is Sweet. He has been investigating the corporate government
activities for over 12 years on a full time basis. Now, let's look at Sweet's recent case. He won his case.
He went into court and defended his common law lien on his property so as to be compatible with
statutory law. The judge said, "However, since you presented me with a lien on your property, I will
stipulate that the county is the owner of your property with the provision that all liens be satisfied."
Sweet was very happy about the judgment. Sweet doesn't care if the county is the owner of the property
because the county can't take the property for the next 90 years. The county can't take the property
away from him because of his common law lien on the property. Sweet is free to use it, rent it, whatever.
If the county really wants the property, they have to satisfy the lien first. However, there is a problem
regarding setting a precedent. Sweet went back a couple of weeks later and asked them to punch up his
case number. Guess what? The case number had disappeared! The reason the case number had
disappeared is that after the judge ruled the county owned the property, subject to the lien, it became a
case that goes against the corporate county bankruptcy public policy.
Since Sweet placed a lien on his own property, he is the one who has to be paid off first - not the
county! The county is now required to satisfy the lien before the county is allowed to take possession of
the property. The property is probably not worth the price of the lien. This would not satisfy the true
creditors, the International Banksters. If the county pays Sweet off first, the city has to on their records
a $75,000.00 deficit. The true creditors wouldn't like that deficit. They certainly wouldn't like the fact
that Sweet's clever maneuver had out foxed the foxes.
What if one hundred, two hundred, a thousand, or ten thousand, people in this state/republic would just
put a common law lien on their property and then stopped paying taxes; then cited Sweet's case. It
would set a precedent. Let the county have the property as long as the judge makes the judgment
subject to existing liens. In this situation, the county would end up holding all this property but could
have no use of it. No rent. No taxes. All deficient. The bankster creditors certainly don't want this
scenario. The banksters don't want any cases administered except through the application of bankruptcy
procedure. The banksters want your rights, privileges, and due process strictly administered by and
through the corporate courts under their corporate public policy, international bankruptcy procedure.
The International Banksters and their UNREGISTERED FOREIGN AGENTS don't want any evidence
on the record, showing how you can get out from under them. Any revenue collecting individual or
agency such as the courts, judges, lawyers, law enforcement officers, and tax collectors who are
attempting to take money from you as a private American must be registered as a foreign agent. If they
are not duly registered and properly identified, they are involved in EXTORATION AND TREASON
against private Americans.
How Sweet It is!
As part of Sweet's maneuver, he filled out a financing statement using the UCC-1 form, whereby he put
his wife and himself as debtors and creditors. Now, the legal situation is switched. The UCC-1 Financing
record Sweet filed with the state, shows Sweet and his wife, as being parties of interest recorded with
the state rather than the presumption that the international banksters are the parties of interest.
There is an office within each corporate state (Secretary of State) that handles the UCC-1 forms for
personal property and the county recorders office who records the UCC-1 against real property. Since
Sweet is listed on corporate state records as the debtor and the creditor on his own property, his
property can't be put up in any way for collateral against any debts claimed by the banksters. The reason
is that the International Banksters and their flunky agents, now, cannot prove that Sweet's property is
debt property of the bank or the corporate county. The property is encumbered by Sweet's lien. Thereby,
the property cannot be put up against any debt claims, until it is not encumbered by Sweet's lien.
Sweet's property is not free and clear of all liens. The result is that for all practical purposes, the
property is now Sweet's, being unencumbered by any further demand for payment of taxes. Sweet has
300
not paid property taxes for many years. Sweet is now his own creditor. And Sweet is his own debtor.
Therefore, the International Banksters along with the county corporate thieves are knocked out for the
stealing process. How sweet it is! Congratulations to Mr. Sweet!
You may want to do it the way Sweet did. If you own property, you will need to get your deed and a
common law lien, then fill out a UCC-1 Form. Then file it with the Secretary of State for personal
property and the county recorder for real property. This seems to be the only way for you to get out
from under being a debtor of these bastardly Corporate Foreign International Banksters. The judges
have to know what's going on. The only way this scheme can work is to all the lawyers and judges
pledge to uphold the corporate bankruptcy public policy. The banksters just can't allow lawyers in a legal
system who refuse to uphold the bankruptcy policy. These renegade lawyers would have to be quickly
weeded out. They certainly have a neat little system going here in America. The Land of the Fee and the
Home of the Slave.
Attention: Law Student
I hope you're listening to this tape, Law Student. You said you wanted to be a lawyer. Well, I hope
you're listening closely, because here is the legal system you're headed to serve, and serve you will. You
said you wanted to be a lawyer so you can find out what oath they're taking, in secret, behind closed
doors in solemn preparation for the "business of the court" as judges and lawyers. Now, you know the
oath. The oath is simply to uphold the bankruptcy. If you want to be a lawyer and want to make a living
as a lawyer, I can tell you this, they will weed you out at the very beginning if you don't bring in your
paperwork under the bankruptcy procedures. If you try to defend your clients and try to help your
clients they will get rid of you. The will pull your license. So you spent all that money and time going to
school under the guise of helping people and you're wasting your time. Without that license you can't go
into a courtroom. I would think about this.
Traffic Citation Regarding the UCC-1 Form, you can also file it against your car. Wouldn't that be a kick
in the tail if you went into court for a traffic citation where you had signed "without prejudice UCC 1-
207". And you had refused [abatement] the traffic citation using the UCC in your procedure by having
signed "without prejudice" and having gone home and sent in your refusal for cause without dishonor of
the presentment of the traffic citation. Now let's say you are in front of the judge. The judge says,
"What's this refusal for cause stuff all about?" The judge won't want any mention that the citation was
issued under bankruptcy. He is afraid you'll mention the bankruptcy issue. The reason you refused for
cause without dishonor the traffic citation, is that it was issued to you under bankruptcy corporate
public policy. He won't get in to that. When you get before the judge, you just state you have removed
yourself from the bankruptcy. Tell him that your auto is no longer pledged for collateral against the debt.
He'll say, "Oh yeah. What are you talking about?" That's when you hand him the UCC-1 Form that you
had filed with the state. This UCC-1 Form will show that you are the debtor and the creditor on your
auto. Now what happened? The corporate county/state can/t collect on the traffic citation debt
instrument. Why? Because, now that you're the creditor on the ticket, if they collect a $100.00 fine, they
have to pay you the amount of the fine. How sweet it is! You're the creditor aren't you? People have
done this. Of course, there is no record, no paper trail, in such cases. It is not cited. The corporate
Bankster's agents, clerks, lawyers, judges, etc. take the information out of the records as soon as you
beat them at their own game.
The Lawyer's Guild Connection The American Bar Association is a franchise of the Lawyer's Guild of
Great Britain. The American Bar Association is not concerned primarily with what happens in any case
on the local level. However, when a case leaves the local level, by that, I mean the state court, city court
or the justice of the peace, or even the federal court, and goes to the appeals court, it would appear that
the American Bar Association takes notice of the case. It would seem that the American Bar Association
must have an agreement that any action brought on an appeal, must be reviewed by the American Bar
Association. If this is true, it would make sense. How else would the American Bar Association, a
branch of the Lawyer's Guild of Great Britain, which is the legal arm of the Rothchild's Dynasty, be able
to monitor and administrate the corporate Bankruptcy. It would appear that the American Bar
301
Association would be compelled to review all appeal cases and to make certain any case brought under
the common law or the constitutional law that would expose the bankruptcy, would be immediately
stamped on the back that "this case is not to be cited or published." I believe that this is the stamp origin
and purpose of the stamp message in such cases. The justice department maybe able to do that in
Washington, D.C. I can't see where any judge or lawyer could have the authority to stamp or lable the
case as one not to be cited for future cases. I think that is an official stamp from the American Bar
Association.
The Bankruptcy Accounting System
Now, Joe Law Student, if your still attending classes and have a good professor, ask him about just
where the stamp comes from that you've seen on many cases. Just who put it on the paperwork and just
who authorized the citation restriction. Just who is tampering with the law? There is one thing certain,
the creditor and or his agents are watching these cases very carefully. The creditor and his agents must
balance their books. When you think of the IRS, be aware that the IRS is an agent of the creditor, the
corporate International Banksters. This is just one of the Bankster's state side agencies. The General
Accounting Office (GAO) is charged with the responsibilities to keep track of the debt. All the states
have to send reports to Washington, D.C. Washington D.C., itself, has to send reports to the GAO. Take
a look at your state Comptroller's Annual Report to the Governor of your state. I found it in the library
located in the city of the corporate state capital. Look under "Trust Fund" for each state sub-corporation
like the state courts, HRS, Banks, Education, etc. you will be amazed at the amount of money being
pumped into the Trust Fund from the various State Department Revenues (all revenue is referred to as
taxes, fines, fees, licenses, etc.). There are millions and billions of your hard earned worthless Federal
Reserve Notes, "dollars", being held in "trust." This money is being siphoned off into the coffers of the
International Banksters while the corporate government officials are hounding you for more taxes.
All this accounting system is not so the people will know what is going on. The accounting reports are
for rthe Bankster creditors to keep tabs on just where their collections are coming from. The Banksters
want to know if the bankruptcy debt payments are coming in and just how much and from what sources.
This accounting if the purpose behind M1, M2, M3, M4, and M5. All this accounting is closely
monitored. Maybe every day, but at least once a week. These M's are the reports of the amounts of
money in circulation. The amount of debt out there, and the amount of credit out there. The floating of
debt in the form of bonds. There are five different categories. This system had to come into existence in
order for the creditors to be on top of the bankruptcy at all times. This system allows the creditors to
figure out and how exactly just what is going on in their domain.
It all makes sense. Don't the banksters hir bill collectors? Creditors hire bill collectors to snoop around
to see why you're not paying. They want to know how much you are going to pay so they can figure out
how much will be coming in. How much will they collect? They want to know who will pay and who
won't. The whole system is nothing but credit and debt.
The World Credit Union
Here is what is going to very quickly happen internationally. All of the governments around the world
are going to unite. They will create one big giant credit union for collecting the debt for the International
Banksters. We have allowed ourselves to get into this very sad situation, but that is the way it is.
And put on NOTICE of the bankruptcy............
Attn: "Public Servant"
On the night of December 23, 1913, the U.S. Congress committed perhaps the greatest act of treason in
history. It surrendered the nation's sovereignty and sold the American people into slavery to a cabal of
arch-charlatan bankers who proceeded to plunder, bankrupt, and conquer the nation with a money
swindle.
The "money" the banks issue is merely bookkeeping entries. It cost them nothing and is not backed by
their wealth, efforts, property, or risk. It is not redeemable except in more debt paper. The Federal
302
Reserve Act forced us to pay compound interest on thin air. We now use worthless "notes" backed by
our own credit that we cannot own and are made subject to compelled performance for the "privilege."
From 1913 until 1933 the U.S. paid the "interest" with more and more gold. The structured inevitability
soon transpired; the Treasury was empty, the debt was greater than ever, and the U.S. declared
bankruptcy. In exchange for using notes belonging to bankers who create them out of nothing on our
own credit, we are forced to repay in substance (labor, property, land, businesses, resources - life) in
ever-increasing amounts. This may be the greatest heist and fraud of all time. When a government goes
bankrupt, it looses its sovereignty. In 1933 the U.S. declared bankruptcy, as expressed in Roosevelt's
Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111, and 6260, House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933 confirmed
in Perry v. U.S. (1935) 294 U.S. 330-381, 79 LEd 912, as well as 31 United States Code (USC) 5112,
5119 and 12 USC
95a.
The bankrupt U.S. went into receivership, reorganized in favor of its creditors and new owners. 1913
turned over America lock, stock, and barrel to a handful of criminals whose avowed intent from the
beginning was to plunder, bankrupt, conquer, and enslave the people of the United States of America
and eliminate the nation from the face of the earth. The goal was, and is, to absorb America into a oneworld
private commercial government, a "New World Order."
With the Erie RR v. Thompkins case of 1938 the Supreme Court confirmed their success; we are now in
an international private commercial jurisdiction in colorable admiralty-maritime under the Law
Merchant. We have been conned and betrayed out of our sovereignty, rights, property, freedom,
common law, Article III courts, and Republic.
The Bill of Rights has been statutized into "civil rights" in commerce.
America has been stolen. We have been made slaves: permanent debtors, bankrupt, in legal incapacity,
rendered "commercial persons," "residents," and corporate franchisees known as "citizens of the United
States" under the socalled "14th Amendment." Said "Amendment" (which was never ratified - see
Congressional Record, June 13, 1967;
Dyett v. Turner, (1968) 439 P2d 266, 267; State v. Phillips, (1975) affirmed a citizenship ???????????.
Instructions and Options
I. Instructions.
This chain letter consists of two aspects:
1. A copy of these "Instructions and Options" and the letter to "Public Servants" should be sent to as
many friends and associates as you wish.
2. Send Copies of the "Public Servant" letter (without Instructions) to as many "public servants" as
possible. Send to local, State, and Federal governments - police, councilmen, mayors, district attorneys,
State and Federal Agencies, Congressman, Senators, judges, lawyers, etc. Anyone in position of
"authority."
Send also to the media - newspapers, news magazines, TV, radio, etc. It is important that those in
"power" know what they are doing and that we know that they know.
The point of this is to inform Americans of their extreme plight. We have no more country. It has been
stolen – along with our lives, rights, and property. That is not paranoia, exaggeration, or hyperbole. It is
the tragic truth. As a result, all "officials" are either fools or knaves, and they should no longer be
compled with or the System considered legitimate.
II. Options
We have been defrauded and conned out of everything - our rights, freedoms, property, and country. We
have the following options:
1. Do Nothing, remain naive-suckers, keep believing the monstrous absurdity that the "government" is
our friend, represents us, or we have any ownership of and control over it. In this case we will remain
slaves and become everincreasingly hopeless with each passing instant as our legal entanglements and
financial indebtedness grow. The end of this path is ruin.
2. Trust that those in power, who now own and run the world, will have a change of heart, surrender
303
their wealth and power and give our freedom, property, and rights back to us.
3. Expect, hope, or pray for divine intervention (how can we expect God to care and do anything if we
don't?)
4. Try to fight our way out. This is an inferior option, as governments, posing as "protectors," have bled
their people dry to pay for the greatest assemblage of weapons of destruction in world history, which are
now arrayed against us.
5. We can think our way out, wake up from our stupor, take legal/moral measures to withdraw from the
System, and not accept any benefits or engage in any involvement with it.
The "Declaration of Independence" Jefferson wrote:
". . whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to
alter or to abolish it, . ." Never has there been a more treacherous and insidious System than that which
has conquered this country without Americans even knowing they have been defeated. No one,
however, needs any document or other party to justify his own "Declaration of Independence." Freedom
is everyone's innate right and responsibility. Only each individual has free will over his own life, and an
obligation of stewardship for its care. What sane man would turn over power to strangers to invent and
impose the rules by which he is to be made to live?
Moreover, no one has any right to delegate or "vote" for any individuals or institutions to exert power
over other human beings. Life, death, economy, justice, law, and human fulfillment are at issue.
Everyone is consummately justified in questioning the basis of rules imposed on him.
Suggestions for Action:
1. Read, learn, contact "Patriot" groups for information;
2. Realize that we have been had. Abandon totally all and every shred of the delusion that the
Government is yours, represents your interests, is legitimate, or is anything other than what it actually is:
the machinery for administering your permanent conquest, plunder, bankruptcy, and enslavement.
3. Do not pay any taxes. Every penny you pay in taxes, to your State or the Federal Government, goes
to pay the phony, fraudulent "National Debt," which is unredeemable. Every cent goes to enrich the
insatiable coffers of a group of archcharlatans who have stolen our country and us along with it. All
taxes go to finance America's plunder and subjugation.
Instead of 1040's or other tax forms send a copy of the "Public Servants" letter with a blank tax form.
This letter is the result of many years of legal research. What is stated barley scratches the surface. If
you wish to know more, the following books can give you a start:
U.S. of A. the Republic - How You Lost It, How You Get It Back! by Lee Brobst. $15.00 Post-paid.
Write: Agro-Bio
Systems, POB 1250 Grass Valley, California, 95945;
Conspirator's Hierarchy - The Committee of 300,
Jack Coleman, 1-800-942-0821;
Secrets of the Federal Reserve (and numerous other books) by Eustace Mullins, Bankers Research
Institute, POB 1105,
Staunton, Virginia.
RESEARCH MATERIAL TO GET COPIES OF:
1. Treaties between the United States and others in Geneva, Switzerland from 1928 to 1932.
2. Minutes of the same meetings as in No. 1, specifically for the year 1930.
3. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
4. House Joint Resolution No. 192 of June 5, 1933.
5. Presidential Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111, 6260.
6. 31 USC 5112 and 5119, and 12 USC 95a.
7. Case Law to Copy:
a. Erie R.R. v. Thompkins, (1938)
b. Perry v. U.S., (1935) 294 U.S. 330-381, 79 LEd 912
c. Dyett v. Turner, (1968) 439 P2d 266, 267
304
d. State of Utah v. Phillips, 540 P.2d 936 (1975)
8. Benedicts on Admiralty
Investigate; the Lawyers Guild of Great Britain and any ties to the American Bar Association.
Lawyers’ Secret Oath? An Expose’
http://www.theawaregroup.com/lawyersecretoath.htm
Secret Courts - Secret Law
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/secretcourts.htm
UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE - ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/overview.html
HOW THE LEGAL SYSTEM WORKS AGAINST YOU:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010331004334/http://www.divorcehelp.com/SC/C14System.html
FIGA ON LINE: (Hartford Van Dyke Updates)
http://web.archive.org/web/20001206021500/earth.vol.com/~rangguid/figja.htm
Comprehensive Destination for Legal Information
http://web.archive.org/web/20001115052500/http://www11.law.com/
America Media Columnists (500) Listed By Names
http://www.blueagle.com/
US Star Chambers
THE SECRET COURT IS BOOMING! - "Imagine a secret court made up of anonymous judges chosen
by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and empowered to grant wiretaps, approve break-ins, tap
psychiatrist's offices and bug homes -- all without probable cause.
"The hearings are conducted in secret without notification of the proposed target and without due
process, since the subject of the investigation can't challenge the evidence or answer the charges brought
against them. "Such a secret court does in fact exist. It was created in 1978 under a law entitled the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, that was designed to limit the abuses of authority made
legion by the administration of former President Richard Nixon and FBI director J. Edgar Hoover..."
Hmmmm. Maybe that should read, "...was designed to give the appearance of limiting the abuses of
authority made legion by the administration of former President Richard Nixon and FBI director J.
Edgar Hoover."
THE SECRET COURT IS BOOMING!
http://www.newsmakingnews.com/archive5,30,00,6,9,00.htm#THE%20SECRET%20COURT%20IS%
20BOOMING!
%20[Defendants%20unnamed.]
#THE SECRET COURT IS BOOMING! [Defendants unnamed.]
The Declaration of Independence
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/declaration.htm
Royal oath soon no bar to lawyers
Tuesday 11 April 2000
Most lawyers can't wait to start their careers, but Carl Moller has kept his on hold for more than a year
on a point of principle. Now he feels his patience has been rewarded.
The Victorian Government has announced that it will change the rules that require law graduates to
swear allegiance to the Queen before they can practise. The change means that Mr Moller, a staunch
republican who has spent the past year working as a legal clerk because he refused to swear the oath,
can now join the ranks of the state's lawyers.
"This is exciting for me ... I'd be a lot happier, of course, if Australia was a republic," he says.
Mr Moller, 28, was due to be admitted as a solicitor and barrister a year ago when he applied for an
exemption from swearing the oath. The Supreme Court refused and the Court of Appeal rejected Mr
Moller's subsequent appeal.
But Attorney-General Rob Hulls has agreed to change the rules, although the reforms are not expected
to make it through State Parliament until the spring session.
305
Mr Moller says that while many of his friends and peers agreed with his views about the oath, they urged
him to do the practical thing and "cross his fingers" during the admission ceremony.
That was never an option, the conscientious objector insists. White lies might be OK for some, but he
says plenty of people also "see the asset-stripping of companies as an acceptable form of conduct".
Mr Moller was a government-selected delegate to the Constitutional Convention, but he argues his
opposition to the oath has never just been about the republic.
"This is about the solemnity of the oath. You don't take an oath you don't believe in. That would be
perjury," he says.
Mr Moller does not see himself as a radical, pointing out that only three other Australian states still
require the oath, and that England abolished the requirement in 1868.
"It doesn't add anything to the practice or the profession ... If you are going to impose an oath, it should
have meaning and it should have substance. It would be better to have no oath than to have an empty
oath," he says.
Mr Hulls says he has not decided whether to scrap the oath entirely, replace it with an oath of allegiance
to Australia, or merely make it optional.
"My department will look at it. I think there are some royalists out there who would still want to swear
allegiance. But we'll have a look at all of the options," he says.
Mr Moller says he just wants to concentrate on becoming a solicitor with his firm Clayton Utz, which
supported him during his campaign.
http://web.archive.org/web/20001205001200/http://theage.com.au/news/20000411/A60926-
2000Apr10.html
This document records the official surrender,
on June 7, 1949, of Florida's third branch of
government, the Supreme Court of Florida,
to a private professional trade group formerly
known as the Florida State Bar Association and
now known as The Florida Bar. This government
takeover set the stage for the present day graft
and corruption now found in Florida's judicial system:
http://www.ablelegalforms.com/40so2d902.htm
TREASON: THE INTERNATIONAL CONSPIRACY OF THE LAWYERS
TO DESTROY THE UNITED STATES FROM WITHIN
http://www.peoples-rights.com/doc12.htm
"The Law"
FIVE WORDS AND TEN COMMANDMENTS TO VICTORY:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/thelaw.htm
The Current Federal Court System -
Why you get the run around, and XXXXXX in the end!
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/court_sys.htm
Who Is Running America?
http://web.archive.org/web/20020803180803/http://www.nidlink.com/~bobhard/usfraud.html
An Oath is an Oath is an Oath
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/oath.htm
LEGAL DOCUMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/US_legal.htm
An Essay on the TRIAL BY JURY 12 Parts
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/trial1.htm
CONFESSIONS OF A JUDGE
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Judge.htm
306
Judge gets orders from England
http://web.archive.org/web/20001210224500/http://www.newnetizen.com/fbi/ordersfromengland.htm
Queen Elizabeth controls and has amended U.S. Social Security
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/queen.htm
The 545 People Responsible For All of America's Woes
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/woes.htm
The Orginal 13th Amendment
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/13th.htm
Was the 14th Amendment Ratified?
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/14th.htm
Secret Courts - Secret Law
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/secretcourts.htm
The Oath of Office
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/oathofoffice.htm
"YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT"
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/silent.htm
The Federal Reserve Is A privately Owned Corporation
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/fed_reserve.htm
Citizens for Judicial Accountability Inc.
http://www.judicialaccountability.org/
U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
THE BANKER'S MANIFEST
Capital must protect itself in every way, through combination and through legislation. Debts must be
collected and loans and mortgages foreclosed as soon as possible. When through a process of law the
common people lost their homes, they will be more tractable and more easily governed by the strong
arm of the law, applied by the central power of wealth, under control of leading financiers. People
without homes will not quarrel with their leaders. This is well known among our principal men now
engaged in forming an imperialism of capital to govern the world. By dividing the people we can get
them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us except as teachers of the
common herd. Thus, by discreeut action we can secure for ourselves what has been generally planned
and successfully accomplished. The above extract was printed from the Banker's Manifest, for private
circulation among leading bankers only. "Civil Servants' Year Book (The Organizer)" Jan 1934 & "New
American" Feb 1934.
Eric Rainbolt: "Great! If we can take a look at the big picture, could you tell us, the people in this room,
any information that you may have of an international and deceptive conspiracy to overthrow the
American Republic and its Constitution & Bill Of Rights in order to set up and usher in a totalitarian
World Government likely espoused under the UN also.."?
Congressman Paul: " He asked if there was an international conspiracy to overthrow our government.
The answer is "Yes". I think there are 25,000 individuals that have used offices of powers, and they are
in our Universities and they are in our Congresses, and they believe in One World Government. And if
you believe in One World Goverment, then you are talking about undermining National Sovereignty and
you are talking about setting up something that you could well call a Dictatorship - and those plans are
there!..."
Parents, take a moment to remind your kids that the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit recently ruled that the government is not required to keep any of the promises the recruiters
make to get them to sign up.
Aug. 30, 2003 Vatican promoted priest despite warnings of sex abuse, records show The Satanic
307
Illuminati have planned to discredit the Church by planting Luciferians among the clergy who would
indulge in criminal sexual behavior. This plan is still operative since the early Renaissance.
What was Donald Rumsfeld doing in Baghdad shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in December 1983?
Negotiating a Deal for an Oil Pipeline through Jordan on behalf of Secretary of State George Schulz for
his "previous" employer, Bechtel. Saddam finally decided it was too expensive. You just don't say no to
the Big Oil Cartels lead by Bush, Cheney and others.
For the first time: understand the secret history of how the U.S. and Iraq have been dealing with each
other and to see through the hypocrisy of the weapons of mass destruction rhetoric
Jim Vallette is the research director for the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network, a project of the
Institute for Policy Studies. He is the author, with Steve Kretzmann and Daphne Wysham, of the report
"Crude Vision: How Oil Interests Obscured US Government Focus on Chemical Weapons Use by
Saddam Hussein."
Everyone's heard of Vice President Dick Cheney's ties to Halliburton, a company standing on the brink
of a bonanza as the government doles out post-war reconstruction dollars. But not enough has been
revealed about Bechtel, a reported finalist for the first round of contracts, and its connections to another
of the war's architects: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. It's a sordid little tale, and one that calls
into question the depth of Rumsfeld's virtuous claims about his intentions to liberate the Iraqis.
U.S. forces in Baghdad might now be searching high and low for Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, but in
the past Saddam was seen by U.S. intelligence services as a bulwark of anti-communism and they used
him as their instrument for more than 40 years, according to former U.S. intelligence diplomats and
intelligence officials.
United Press International has interviewed almost a dozen former U.S. diplomats, British scholars and
former U.S. intelligence officials to piece together the following account. The CIA declined to comment
on the report.
While many have thought that Saddam first became involved with U.S. intelligence agencies at the start
of the September 1980 Iran-Iraq war, his first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he
was part of a CIA authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen.
Abd al-Karim Qasim.
I've concluded that the notion that exposing the hypocrisy and lies of the US government will lead to
enlightenment is a seriously wrongheaded strategy. Why? Because the majority of white Americans, the
ones who support the war, realize at some level that they are privileged relative to the rest of the world,
and that this privilege is based on the hegemony of the US. Therefore, they support whatever it takes to
maintain that hegemony. If anything, they want to be lied to so they have a means to deny
responsibility."
According to this view, the American people are willing partners in the grand charade. They know that
the 'quality of life' they enjoy comes at the cost of the oppression and slaughter of millions, and that is
okay just so long as Washington and its media whores supply the lies, no matter how thinly constructed,
that allow them to live in a state of perpetual denial.
I must say that it is difficult to not take such a cynical view.
Never before in history has a nation of people lent its support to such barbarity based on such poorly
constructed lies.
Never before in history has a nation of people lent its support to such barbarity based on lies that are, in
this information age, so easily exposed as lies.
And never before in history has a nation of people lent its support to such barbarity based on lies told by
a leader sorely lacking in intelligence, charisma, and the ability to speak coherently in public.
If there is, in the future, to be any honest retelling of this historical period (which assumes, of course,
that there will be a future in which "history" will have any meaning), then scholars will look upon
Americans with a combination of revulsion and bewilderment unrivaled even by the scorn heaped on the
German people after World War II. How can a nation of people follow a course justified by such poorly
constructed and poorly told lies when the entire world is signaling its opposition? Professor John
308
McMurtry has spoken of the "silently regulating principles" of the "ruling group-mind" that afflicts
America. One of those principals is that "America is always and necessarily right in all conflicts with
other nations or peoples or social forces. This is not a truth which facts can disprove, because it is true
by definition in the ruling group-mind. Disproving facts are irrelevant or of no consequence ..."
Is that because the disproving facts are already known or strongly suspected, but cannot be addressed
because doing so
would puncture the carefully constructed and maintained veil of willful ignorance?
As William Blum noted in Killing Hope, George Bernard Shaw used three concepts to describe
individuals in Nazi Germany: intelligence, decency, and Nazism. An individual could posses any two of
these characteristics, but never all three. A person could be a Nazi and intelligent, for instance, if he
wasn't decent, and he could be a Nazi and decent if he wasn't intelligent. In other words, in order to be a
Nazi, one had to be either unintelligent or indecent.
There is no question that those same principals apply to America today. A person cannot support the
policies of the Bush administration unless said person is lacking in either intelligence or decency -- or, in
the case of Bush himself, both. "I just didn't know" simply doesn't cut it when your proclaimed
ignorance is based on lies that are an insult to the intelligence of a child.
Perhaps we have reached a point in history that will separate the decent from the indecent -- a time when
the disconnect between the agenda being pursued and the interests of the people has grown so enormous
that lies will only continue to sell the system to those who want to be lied to.
The Bush administration’s campaign to vaccinate hundreds of thousands of health care workers against
smallpox has virtually ground to a halt since three people died in a four-day span after receiving
smallpox inoculations. All three were over 50 and at risk for heart disease and the vaccine may have
triggered fatal heart attacks in each case.
Andrea Cornitcher, 56, a nurse at the Peninsula Regional Medial Center in Salisbury, Maryland,
collapsed and died March 23, five days after receiving her smallpox vaccination. Virginia Jorgensen, 57,
a nurse’s assistant in St. Petersburg, died March 26, ten days after suffering a heart attack. She had been
inoculated February 26. A 55-year-old national guardsman died March 27, two days after his
inoculation. His identity has not yet been made public. The Beast Mobile is on Its way to implant a chip
in you and your family. Now the Mark of the Beast is finally available. Everyone should have one so you
can be tracked down wherever you go. Takes the fun out of the hunt though, doesn't it John and Tom?
"In the course of the past year, a new belief has emerged in Washington: the belief in war against Iraq.
That ardent faith was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them
Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith,
William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who are mutual friends and cultivate one
another and are convinced that political ideas are a major driving force of history." Ha'aretz's Ari Shavit
talks to true believers as well as the doubtful in Washington about the neoconservative visions of the
"new Middle East."
Neocon Convergences The Bradley Foundation is the right’s economic fount for ideas promoting neoracist
empire. A funny thing happened while following the money trail of the neoconservatives who have
hijacked U.S. Foreign policy. The path led to a network of financial and intellectual resources that also is
dedicated to neo-racism. The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation has been the economic fount for the
neo-conservative notions of global affairs now ascendant in the Bush administration. According to a
report by Media Transparency, from 1995 to 2001 the Milwaukee-based foundation provided about
$14.5 million to the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the think tank most responsible for incubating
and nourishing the ideas of the neo-con movement.
The Bradley Foundation also made grants totaling nearly $1.8 million to help fund the Project for the
New American Century (PNAC), the influential group that had urged an invasion of Iraq since its 1997
founding. PNAC, headed by Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, boasts a membership that includes
many players in the Bush administration, including Vice President Dick Cheney and Deputy Secretary of
Defense Paul Wolfowitz Jean Parker, a member of the Board of Directors for RFPI, it emerged that
309
perhaps the main reason that RFPI was facing eviction was because its programming was at odds with
the direction that the new administration wished to go with the University, a UN-mandated organisation
RFPI was established on the University for Peace's campus in the 1980's. Since its inception the station
has worked well with successive administrations of the University, broadcasting UP and UN
programming. However since billionaire mover and shaker Maurice Strong took over the Presidency of
the University Council, it was decided that the relationship between UP and RFPI "should be
terminated".
Parker stated that "the new administration headed by Maurice Strong seems to be very oriented to the
corporate sector as opposed to the NGO sector. Many of the Council members who were formerly on
the Council of the University have been replaced by business people, not NGO or public sector people."
"Radio for Peace is broadcasting programmes that are questioning and criticising things like the World
Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and other aspects
of so-called `freetrade' - free for some people and costly for most."
One of the primary audiences of RFPI is North America. Radio broadcasts into the USA promoting
ideas of peace and freedom should be encouraged, not stamped out. As the world's self appointed
beacon of democracy, the US would gain more credibility for its humanitarian ideals by publicly
supporting the station. The fact that the station is instead facing a possible crushing under the foot of
global interests which see the broadcasts as "not appropriate to the new programme of the University"
must prompt the question "What do the UN and the University for Peace stand for then?"
Political observers often have wondered why Democrats, especially liberals, didn't put up more of a fight
against the Patriot Act, which passed the Senate with only one dissenting vote. Many thought it was
because Dems didn't have the guts to stand up, and were afraid both to look unpatriotic and to risk
defeat at the hands of the mighty Bush. But there may be another reason: The Patriot Act enhances
major incursions into civil liberties that were sponsored by Bill Clinton in 1994 and 1996, including the
setting up of secret courts and the launch of mass deportations. Democrats and Republicans alike foster
the development of the New World Order.
It's not even about religion. It's the agenda of the Illuminati for thousands of years! If you KNEW
anything about the Illuminati you would know that Adam Weishaupt was a Jew who became a Jesuit and
founded the Illuminati in 1776.
Look at your dollar bill. That number at the base of the pyramid is NOT commemorating the date of the
Declaration of Independence. Adams, Franklin, and especially Jefferson were very taken by the Illuminist
movement that had just overthrown the King of France and initiated a Reign of Terror, (another
Illuminati ploy used in Russia and Spain). The Eye of Horus, the Pyramid, the date of the founding, the
declaration of a New Secular Order (Novus Seclorum Ordo), the celebration of the success of their
agenda (Annuit Coeptis) are part of the Seal of Illuminism and were proposed by our Illuminist
forefathers to back up the Great Seal of the United States. it's time to take a careful look, an
intellectually honest, objective, rational look at what is happening.. The Jesuits, Illuminati, Zionists,
Freemasons and their Council on Foreign Relations, Rhodes Scholars, Bilderbergers, Trilateral
Commission, Rockefeller and Ford Foundations and sub-foundations, liberal AND Conservative
commentators, the news media of the Left AND Right, Think Tanks of the Left AND Right, Democrat
AND Republican politicians, the United Nations, World Council of Churches.......... are all complicit in
bringing the entire world under their domination, a Satanic Total Dictatorship of the whole world.
How did it come to this? Stealth, Machiavellian amorality and willingness to lie, murder, cheat, steal,
enslave at will, as well as the knowledge that most people are too stupid or easily manipulated to be able
to even notice until its too late. As I wrote before, Cows in the pasture are cared for, milked, and then
led off in trucks to hang surprised as they are eviscerated and skinned alive. They trusted the farmer and
they pay for their stupidity and gullibility the hard way.
You might see this for the first time, but the Pope's statement fits perfectly into the Hegelian tactic of
creating a problem and then proposing THEIR solution. The slogan of the Freemasons is "out of Chaos,
order," and all they need is a way to initiate enough chaos that people would be crying out for a means
310
to once again bring order. And that's where Dubya comes in. And the Zionist neo-conservatives like
Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, William Kristol et al.
We have endured a protracted National Suicide with little cuts here and there, poisons in our food, water
and air, squabbling of left and right, pro-abortion vs anti-abortion to keep us distracted, bleeding our
productivity, keeping us as collateral to be monetized without our consent, lied to by our history books
and our teachers, lied to by our news media and movies, lied to by those we chose to be our leaders, our
votes stolen or skewed. We are close to the Reign of Terror. The first hint of that might be 9/11, but it
has its roots in Oklahoma City, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Wounded Knee, the Trail of Tears.....
Paul Revere is riding to sound the warning. Will you roll over and go back to sleep?
Feb 7, 2004
Janet Jackson accosted for showing slightly more breast than at the beach or on sexploitation TV
Another distraction as the New World Order takes over.
10 February 2004
ADL Continues Attacks on the Truth: Protecting Zionism as a Violation of Free Speech
True or False: "And what are they doing with Palestinians, every day? They're killing them. They're
walling them in, they're essentially doing the same thing that was done to them. . . . It's exactly what
Hitler did to the Jews.'' Should we call them the Anti-Democratic League?
16 February 2004
Flawed electronic voting system chaos looms for American election says scientist
Feb 26, 2004
Zionists raze long-established Bedouin villages to force ancient people into their impoverished
reservations or Bantustans. more here
Feb 26, 2004
Deputy Defense Minister Ze'ev Boim posits: Is Palestinian terror caused by a genetic defect?
The guilty party points a finger to project blame. The answer is that Khazars who adopted Judaism, the
Ashkenazim, were descendants of a group that emerged in history following a disastrous climatic shift in
the Sahara around 4,000 BC. Their entire culture underwent a 180 degree shift from matriarchy to
patriarchy, their art from nature, beauty, and nurturance to war, violence and aggression. They became
the moneychangers, the Illuminati, Rothschilds, international financiers and bankers, the Merchant of
Venice and Zionists of modern day Israel. There is the genetic defect.
"The most vulnerable, disadvantaged children are being exploited by powerful entities and used as
guinea pigs as if they were not human beings," said Vera Sharav from the Alliance for Human Research
and Protection. Until Americans discover their vulnerability and the remedy, they will be treated as
wards of the state. 02 January 2004
From Joshua to Sharon: A History of Ethnic Cleansing in the Promised Land
January 7, 2004
It's because they fear us, say teenage refuseniks jailed by Israeli army
8 January 2004
Israeli Chief of Staff proven to be a liar: Brutal crackdown on Jewish anti-occupation activists
December 4, 2003
Kissinger OK'd ' dirty war' in Argentina in 1970's
George H. W. Bush, Skull and Bones, and the New World Order
Was Wellstone Assassinated by EMF? Latest government report on Wellstone 'accident' finds its
scapegoats, many questions remain.
I'm for the little fellers, not the Rockefellers. - Sen. Paul Wellstone
Shortly before he died in a mysterious airplane crash 11 days prior to the 2002 elections, Minnesota Sen.
Paul Wellstone met with Vice President Dick Cheney, probably the Bush administration's most evil
public face.
At a meeting full of war veterans in Willmar, Minn., days before his death, Wellstone told attendees that
Cheney told him, "If you vote against the war in Iraq, the Bush administration will do whatever is
311
necessary to get you. There will be severe ramifications for you and the state of Minnesota."
Wellstone cast his vote for his conscience and against the Iraq measure, the lone Democrat involved in a
tough 2002 election campaign to do so. And a few weeks later on Oct. 25, as he appeared to be winning
his re-election bid, Wellstone, his wife, Sheila, his daughter, Marcia Markuson, three campaign staffers,
and two pilots died in a plane crash in Minnesota.
Talk about "severe ramifications."
The modern-day, limited-government movement has been co-opted. The conservatives have failed in
their effort to shrink the size of government. There has not been, nor will there soon be, a conservative
revolution in Washington.
Political party control of the federal government has changed, but the inexorable growth in the size and
scope of government has continued unabated. The liberal arguments for limited government in personal
affairs and foreign military adventurism were never seriously considered as part of this revolution.
Benjamin Disraeli, first Prime Minister of England stated in 1844: "The world is governed by very
different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes."
Winston Churchill stated to the London press in 1922: "From the days of Sparticus Wieshophf, Karl
Marx, Trotski, Belacoon, Rosa Luxenberg, and Ema Goldman, this world conspiracy has been steadily
growing. This conspiracy played a definite recognizable role in the tragedy of the French revolution. It
has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century. And now at last this
band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have
gripped the Russian people by the hair of their head and have become the undisputed masters of that
enormous empire."
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter: "The real rulers in Washington are invisible and exercise
power from behind the scenes."
John F. Hylan, Mayor of New York, 1918-1925: "The real menace of our Republic is the invisible
government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation."
President Franklin D. Roosevelt in a letter dated November 21, 1933: "The real truth of the matter is, as
you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since
the days of Andrew Jackson."
U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater, Republican candidate for President, 1964, in his book "With no
Apologies" states: "The Trilateral Commission is the international....[It] is intended to be the vehicle for
multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political
government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to
seize control and consolidate the four centers of power - POLITICAL, MONETARY,
INTELLECTUAL, and ECCLESIASTICAL."
Robert Kennedy, former U.S. Attorney General: "All of us will ultimately be judged on the effort we
have contributed to building a New World Order."
Quotes about the New World Order
The Farmer's Plan for his Cattle--Cow them into Submission and then Cull the Herd. Dr. Zbigniew
Brzezinski's book, THE GRAND CHESSBOARD - American Primacy And It's Geostrategic
Imperatives published in 1997, laid out his analysis and strategy for a Global American Empire.
"The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much
more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the
shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. (pp 24-5)
"For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia... Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in
Eurasia – and America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its
preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained. (p.30)
"In that context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is
geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most
advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over
Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and
312
Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's
people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and
underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the
world's known energy resources."
It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of
America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy
attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion,
except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The
economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among
professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is
inimical to imperial mobilization."
"Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that
have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to
decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their
seeking to attain them;... second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the
above..."
"...To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three
grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence
among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming
together."
"That puts a premium on maneuver and manipulation in order to prevent the emergence of a hostile
coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America's primacy..."
"The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to
expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role."
"In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of
hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only,
truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last."
"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to
fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely
perceived direct external threat."
While seconded from the German defense ministry to NATO in the late 1970s, Dr. Johannes Koeppl
traveled to Washington on more than one occasion. He also met with Zbigniew Brzezinski in the White
House on more than one occasion. His other Washington contacts included Steve Larabee from the
CFR, John J. McCloy, former CIA Director, economist Milton Friedman, and officials from Carter's
Office of Management and Budget. He is the first person I have ever interviewed who has made a direct
presentation at a Bilderberger conference and he has also made numerous presentations to sub-groups of
the Trilateral Commission. That was before he spoke out against them.
His fall was rapid after he realized that Brzezinski was part of a group intending to impose a world
dictatorship. "In 1983/4 I warned of a take-over of world governments being orchestrated by these
people. There was an obvious plan to subvert true democracies and selected leaders were not being
chosen based upon character but upon their loyalty to an economic system run by the elites and
dedicated to preserving their power. "All we have now are pseudo-democracies."
Koeppl recalls meeting U.S. Congressman Larry McDonald in Nuremburg in the early 80s. McDonald,
who was then contemplating a run for the Presidency, was a severe critic of these elites. He was killed in
the Russian shootdown of Korean Air flight 007 in 1985. Koeppl believes that it might have been an
assassination. Over the years many writers have made these allegations about 007 and the fact that
someone with Koeppl's credentials believes that an entire plane full of passengers would be destroyed to
eliminate one man offers a chilling opinion of the value placed on human life by the powers that be. In
1983, Koeppl warned, through Op-Ed pieces published in NEWSWEEK and elsewhere, that Brzezinski
and the CFR were part of an effort to impose a global dictatorship. His fall from grace was swift. "It was
313
a criminal society that I was dealing with. It was not possible to publish anymore in the so-called
respected publications. My 30 year career in politics ended.
"The people of the western world have been trained to be good consumers; to focus on money, sports
cars, beauty, consumer goods. They have not been trained to look for character in people. Therefore
what we need is education for politicians, a form of training that instills in them a higher sense of ethics
than service to money. There is no training now for world leaders. This is a shame because of the
responsibility that leaders hold to benefit all mankind rather than to blindly pursue destructive paths.
"We also need education for citizens to be more efficient in their democracies, in addition to education
for politicians that will create a new network of elites based upon character and social intelligence."
Koeppl, who wrote his 1989 doctoral thesis on NATO management, also authored a 1989 book - largely
ignored because of its controversial revelations - entitled "The Most Important Secrets in the World."
He maintains a German language web site at www.antaris.com and he can be reached by email at
jbk@antaris.com.
As to the present conflict Koeppl expressed the gravest concerns, "This is more than a war against
terrorism. This is a war against the citizens of all countries. The current elites are creating so much fear
that people don't know how to respond. But they must remember. This is a move to implement a world
dictatorship within the next five years. There may not be another chance."
Sen. William Jenner said in a February 23, 1954 speech: "Today the path to total dictatorship in the
United States can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by the Congress, the President, or
the people...0utwardly we have a constitutional government. We have operating within our government
and political system, another body representing another form of government, a bureaucratic elite which
believes our Constitution is outmoded and is sure that it is the winning side...All the strange
developments in foreign policy agreements may be traced to this group who are going to make us over
to suit their pleasure...This political action group has its own local political support organizations, its
own pressure groups, its own vested interests, its foothold within our government. Walter Rathenau,
head of German General Electric, said in 1909: "Three hundred men, all of-whom know one another,
direct the economic destiny of Europe and choose their successors from among themselves."
NTSB Does Misdirection and Keystone Kops Routine over Wellstone "Accident"
Now, pay attention!. The NTSB is saying that the pilots allowed the plane to slow down too much on
the approach to the airport, stalling it out. Yet only a few paragraphs later, they claim that the plane
"veered to the left" before crashing in the woods. Planes that stall don't veer. They plummet. If the
Wellstone plane was veering, then it had lost attitude control, but there had to be lift on the wings. Their
cover-up demonstrates that Wellstone's death was a political assassination.
Neocons show they are willing to compromise National Security to retain their power
"As I was researching the economic development of the world and I was researching the shadow
economy and the organized crime, particularly the mafia, I started to work on the hypothesis that there
are actually shadow structures that are interested in slowing down and collapsing the world
economy...We know the white house cabinet all sold their airlines stock days before the
incident.[9/11]..Dr. Koryagina said that it is inevitable that this can’t be concealed forvery much longer
but by the time the public awakens to the facts, they will be naked in the streets. The collapse of social
security and the pension funds will amplify the misery and despair." U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra
Day O'Connor says she and her colleagues will rely increasingly on international law rather than the U.S.
Constitution in their decisions — a statement that's prompting calls for her to step down. This is a
judicial step toward the New World Order. Who are the terrorists in Indonesia? The most likely
candidates in most Indonesians' minds are the U.S. Government and the Indonesian army. Al-Qaeda is a
distant third. It seems a simple story. At first glance it appears to be nothing more than a very long fairy
tale about good and evil. Peopled with Elves, Dwarves, Wizards, Monsters and more, J.R.R. Tolkien's
Lord of the Rings was not considered a great work of literature when it first appeared in 1954. Now it is
hailed as the book of the 20th century. What is it about this book that caused it to be such a sensation?
Why does it create such a warmth and resonance in the hearts of its readers? Our answer to these and
314
other questions to be discussed in the course of this article is that Tolkien was aware of the hidden
esoteric history of humanity and the powerful influence of the Great Work of Alchemy on European
culture. Using Tolkien's splendid tale as a tool, this article will reveal that like the great masters of old,
Tolkien is initiating us into a new level of awareness of our past, ourselves and the planet we inhabit. It
will also reveal that Tolkien somehow knew the deepest secrets of Alchemy and embedded this
mysterious knowledge into the heart of his work. This is the real reason why The Lord of the Rings has
such a great and universal appeal, for it is our true history and secret heritage that is being revealed to us
through its pages. Tolkien has mined a deep vein of mythic resonance that rings true to all who delve
deeply into this extraordinary work of Art. Milosevic trial sets precedent: US granted right to censor
evidence.
A press release issued before Democratic Presidential candidate Wesley Clark gave evidence at the trial
of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic said Clark’s testimony would be given in closed
session. The press release also said the normally simultaneous broadcast of the testimony would “be
delayed for a period of 48 hours to enable the US government to review the transcript and make
representations as to whether evidence given in open session should be redacted in order to protect the
national interests of the US.” So much for "the whole truth and nothing but the truth".
The enemy within: The neocon hijacking of America
The foreign strategy of the US must be "unapologetic, idealistic, assertive and well funded. America
must not only be the world's policeman or its sheriff, it must be its beacon and guide . . . Our first
objective is to prevent the reemergence of a new rival. This is a dominant consideration underlying the
new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from
dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global
power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and
Southwest Asia . . . There are three additional aspects to this objective: First the U.S must show the
leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential
competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect
their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests
of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to
overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for
deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."—Defense
Planning Guidance developed in 1992 by Paul Wolfowitz, endorsed as PNAC ideology and now
established Bush foreign policy Senator says briefing prior to vote on war resolution claimed drones
could hit US.
The Bush Administration told senior politicians before the Iraq war that Saddam Hussein had developed
drones which could strike the east coast of the US with weapons of mass destruction, a Senator has
claimed. Democrat Bill Nelson said he was among around 75 Senators who received the classified
briefing shortly before a Congressional vote last October, which authorised the removal of Saddam by
force.
Democrat Bill Nelson
Rebellion in Haiti was Made in the USA: Bush "disturbed" by voting irregularities blocks
aid to the poorest nation in the region.
315
"(Aristide) was not happy. He did not want to be taken away. He did not want to leave. He was not able
to fight against the Americans."
Is kidnapping a leader of a foreign country a violation of International Law? Not to the Bush Crime
Family and their Bush Liars' Club. The one good thing that has come out of the attempted coup in
Venezuela and the kidnapping in Haiti is that all the peoples of the Caribbean and Central and South
America now know that the United States is an enemy of democracy and human rights, and will act
ruthlessly to continue its exploitation of their people. With a few basic facts about Haiti in mind, go
watch the NY Times spin doctors play with THEIR version of the truth-- on TRUTHOUT!
The "Illuminati" Monetary Fund demands that Argentina pay their debts: Argentina says YOU conspired
with crooks to create debt, YOU pay them.
Argentina has a REAL Democracy! America should be so lucky! The America-haters are those who
support the criminals who have gutted our ideals and our economy.
Sharon is not the problem – It's the nature of Zionist ideology
Bush's pattern of breaking promises: it's in the bloodline. All lizards lie. It's the nature of the BEAST.
What can be done? Amazingly, it is connected with Debt Elimination for each individual. Not only does
this end personal debt, it places the people first in line as creditors to the National Debt ahead of the
banks. They don't wish for you to know this. It has to do with recognizing WHO you really are in A
New Beginning: A Practical Course in Miracles. You CAN take back your power and stop volunteering
to pay taxes to the collection agency for the BEAST. You can take back that which is yours, always has
been yours and use it to pay off your debts.
Marijuana Suppression
Here is documented all kinds of mind-blowing long-suppressed facts about Humanity's best friend "The
Cannabis Plant". Hemp or Cannabis as it is scientifically referred to is the fastest growing biomass
source on Earth. Biomass is a cheap and efficient source of fuel. As a matter of fact, if we were to farm
only 6% of the country's available farmland with hemp we could meet all of the country's Industrial
energy and transportation needs. Hemp is 26 times stronger than cotton and lasts 10 times longer. We
can produce 4 times as much paper from Hemp as we can from trees at one fourth the cost and 1/5 the
pollution and it is 10 times stronger and lasts ten times longer. It is a fact that Betsy Ross made our first
flag "Old Glory" from Hemp fiber. Also, our Constitution and Declaration of Independance were printed
on Hemp paper. The soldiers clothes during the revolutionary war were made from Hemp. The second
most prescribed medicine in the United States for 150 years for over 100 different medical illnesses was
a Cannabis extract and it is a lot stronger when taken in concentrated form. This means that all the
children in America for 150 years were brought up as DRUG USERS from birth. Or, it just means
simply, that we had a better understanding of herbs and their medicinal usage 100 years ago than we do
today. So who has REALLY lost their mind, people who smoke pot, or the "NORMALS" ?
The drug war is nothing more than an excuse to suppress consciousness and use the ignorant in our
society to create laws for the New World Order to use to crack down on all of our rights !! According to
a Feb. 1938 article in Popular Mechanics the invention of a new machine called the decorticator, would
once again put Hemp in the dominant position in the fiber and textiles industry over cotton by speeding
up the harvesting methods in use at the time. At this same time Dupont held a patent on a synthetic
compound used to break down wood pulp to make paper. To make paper from Hemp didn't require any
chemicals. In order for Dupont to profit from these chemicals, they had to see to it that Hemp was outlawed.
Andrew Mellon sat on the board of Dupont and Mellon's nephew was Harry Anslinger, the head
of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics at the time. William Randolph Hearst owned many big newspapers
and working together they whipped up a smear campaign of "Yellow Journalism" in America, spreading
propaganda that the African-Americans and Mexicans were smuggling in a new killer dope weed that
would lure white women to fall prey to the seduction of the "Negro", while under the influence of Jazz
music. Racism and fear were used to outlaw something that was used by every man, woman, and child
in America. It wasn't until after the marijuana tax act was passed that the American Medical Association
316
realized that "marijuana", a slang term for hemp was in fact "Cannabis", our second most prescribed
medicine. This is when "Reefer Madness" began.
NO ONE HAS EVER DIED FROM USING CANNABIS / MARIJUANA !!!
The many benefits of Hemp include, but are not limited, to the following : Hemp utilizes the sun more
efficiently than virtually any other plant on the planet, reaching 10-20 feet or more in a single short
growing season. It can even be grown in almost any climate or soil condition on Earth. Hemp is softer
than cotton, warmer than cotton, more water absorbant than cotton, has three times the tensile strength
of cotton and many times more durable. 50% of all chemicals used in American agriculture today are
used on cotton and Hemp requires no chemicals or pesticides to grow. Cannabis makes the very best
Canvas paper for Art. For centuries, most all of the world's great art used Cannabis Paper.
The Dutch word for CANNABIS is CANVAS. Hemp seed oil makes the best oil for paints and
varnishes. Up until about 1800, Hemp seed oil was the most consumed lighting oil in America and the
world. Hemp is a fuel source. Hemp is the fastest growing biomass source on Earth. Biomass can be
converted to methane, methanol or gasoline at a fraction of the cost of oil, coal or nuclear energy.
Instead of using fossil fuels, which have been in the Earth for millions of years and pollute the planet
while removing it and shipping it around the world, we could be "HARVESTING OXYGEN" by
growing a plant source which produces oxygen while it is growing, then when we burn it and produce
carbon dioxide, the cycle is balanced.
As a medicine, Cannabis has been used for centuries and continues to be used today for all kinds of
ailments including: stress, rheumatism, asthma, delerium tremens, migrain headaches, pms cramps,
glaucoma, nausea, tumors, and anorexia.
Cannabis / Hemp / Marijuana seeds are the highest source of complete vegetable protein on the entire
planet. Soybeans contain a higher percentage of protein but the composition of the protein in Hemp
allows more of it to be used by the body.
65 % of the protein in Hemp seeds is in the form of globulin edestin. The high edestin content combined
with albumin, another globular protein contained in all seeds means the readily available protein in Hemp
seeds contain all the essential amino acids in ideal proportions to assure your body has the necessary
building blocks to create proteins like disease fighting immunoglobulins--antibodies whose job is to ward
off infections before the symptoms of sickness set in.
Hemp seeds are also the highest known source of Essential Fatty Acids. Essential, meaning (We Couldn't
Live Without Them).
These Linoleic and Linolenic acids are responsible for the luster in your skin and hair. They also clear the
arteries and rebuild the immune system. Plastic Plumbing Pipe (PVC) can be manufactured using
renewable Hemp cellulose as the chemical feedstocks, replacing non-renewable petroleum based
chemical feedstocks. The seed oil is a machine grade quality lubricant and can be used to run engines
and replace petro-oils completely.
In 1942, the government produced a film called "Hemp for Victory". Jack Herer is responsible for
uncovering one of the last copies known. This film promotes the positive aspects of the Hemp Plant
from the government's own mouth. A May 2000 poll by the National Post newspaper revealed that 92%
of Canadians think pot should be legal for medical purposes. 65% of respondents backed decriminalizing
pot entirely.
317
The Root of Your Economic Problems
"The prime function of government is the protection of the different and unequal faculties of men for
acquiring property."
JAMES MADISON
Rising debts and increasing bankruptcies are the result of Congress suspending the free coinage of
metals - into money
- and switching us to bank credits as our medium of exchange. These acts converted our nation from a
wealth monetary system, where people created money for society's benefit through the fruits of their
labor, to a monetary system, where now ....
All new money is loaned into circulation as an interest bearing debt. Since this system only creates the
principal and never the interest, the debt is always greater than the money supply.
This fraudulently created debt forces American citizens to borrow constantly so the system can function.
Eventually, the process becomes unworkable as society, mortgaged to the hilt, can no longer afford to
borrow. This debt creates extreme stress for us as we struggle to meet impossible money obligations.
The results are: a constantly rising cost of living, layoffs, bankruptcies, family breakdown, increased
drug and alcohol use, an increase in crime and a general moral breakdown.
The Switch From Wealth to Debt
318
Since 1792, our money has been "switched' from wealth to debt. By changing our money back to
wealth, we can reverse the tide of ever increasing prices, taxes, debt , bankruptcies and economic ills
that are destroying America and her people. How money is put into circulation is the most important
principle. The real issue is not gold and silver vs. paper, not commodity money vs. fiat money, but
wealth vs. debt, honesty vs. fraud. Let's follow the trail of United States money, from when it was gold
and silver commodity money, put into circulation as a wealth to the people, by the people, to what it has
become - a monetized debt, put into circulation by the banks, as interest bearing debts to the people, for
the personal profit of bank owners.
The real reason gold and silver coinage initially worked well as money for the people, is that the people
produced the gold and silver, a raw resource of the earth, through their labor. The 1792 Coinage Act
allowed anyone to take that resource to the United States mint and have it monetized (coined) free of
charge. We, the people, furnished our own money, based on our production, as a wealth to ourselves
and spent it into circulation as a benefit to all of society with no debt attached to it. Gold and silver are
very heavy metals and not as convenient to carry as paper money. If we didn't want to carry the gold and
silver coins around with us we could take them to the United States Treasury's National Bank and
store/deposit the coins. The Treasury would issue depositors gold and silver certificates as receipts.
They stated on their face that there was X amount of gold or silver coin on deposit in the Treasury,
payable to the bearer on demand. Now, we had paper money. As long as just this principle was followed
you still had good, honest, wealth money with ndebt, no excessive profit, nor excessive purchasing
power to anyone.
1922 series ten dollar gold certificate
This 1922 series ten dollar gold certificate is a good example of honest money. The note states on it's
face "THIS CERTIFIES THAT THERE HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE TREASURY OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TEN DOLLARS IN GOLD COIN PAYABLE TO THE BEARER
ON DEMAND" Fully backed and redeemable paper money that was as good as gold. However, when
someone deposited their gold and silver coins in private non-governmental reserve banks, a totally
different principle went into action. The private banks held the coins as a reserve for making new paper
money to issue as loans, expanding the paper money supply. Making the new paper money loans equal
to 10 times the face value of the coins deposited. This fractional reserve system seemed well and good
as the banks raked in huge sums of interest and shared some of the earned interest with depositors. At
that point, money switched from wealth to debt. The expanded money supply now had a fiat backing
(only a fraction of the paper money was really backed by gold or silver coin). Private Bank Note Money.
319
Because of the popularity and tactics of these private non-governmental banks the United States
National Bank established in 1791 by congress was unable to compete and had to be shut down in 1832.
From the beginning private banks have been lobbing congress and congress has been deceived into
making laws allowing private banks to take control of our money.
Robert H. Hemphill
“If all the bank loans were paid no one would have a bank deposit and there would not be a dollar of coin or currency in
circulation.”
Americans have lacked this understanding. Lack of understanding is why America is the world's greatest
debtor nation with over $26 Trillion in public and private debt at the end of 1990. On January 24, 1939,
Robert H. Hemphill, credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta stated: "If all the bank
loans were paid no one would have a bank deposit and there would not be a dollar of coin or currency in
circulation. This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial banks.
Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the banks create ample
synthetic money we are prosperous: if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money
system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is
almost incredible, but there it is. It (the banking problem) is the most important subject intelligent
persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse
unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied very soon."
At first glance, private non-governmental banking looks like a good deal for everyone. The banks get
more profit. The people can get quicker and easier loans. More capital is available to engage in
commerce. Production picks up. But, sooner or later, more and more people can not make their loan
payments. An unseen by-product of fractional reserve banking is: it makes a few people very rich, and
leaves everyone else constantly in debt (even if you are personally out of debt the taxes you pay are your
interest payments on an unpayable public debt). Fractional reserve banking creates compounding,
unpayable public and private debt, which causes the cost of living to constantly go up for all Americans.
Throughout the nineteenth century, larger banks worked to get laws passed that would consolidate all
paper money issuance under the control of just a few. After years of hard lobbying and manipulation,
The banking élite made a major leap forward under the guise of a standardized national money. They
were successful in 1863 with the passage of the National Banking Act. It allowed newly chartered
(privately owned) national banks to create new uniform national bank notes. A few years later their
efforts payed off again, getting the federal government to tax state bank notes out of existence. Then in
1873 another triumph in getting the government to stop all free coinage of metals. To fully establish this
newly nationalized form of fiat (fraud) money it's creators began switching the backing of paper money
from gold and silver to United States Certificates of indebtedness "United States Bonds". Forcing the
government to create certificates of debt as security for the paper currency. Real money was removed
from circulation first by government mandated confiscation in 1933 then by revaluation in 1973. Our
"We the people" owned money was completely replaced with fiat money distributed by the
unconstitutional and privately owned Federal Reserve Bank. The 1914 series one dollar note is a good
example of fiat (fraud) money. The note states on it's face "THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK (A
private banking corporation) WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND ONE DOLLAR" However,
it does not say what this dollar when demanded will be made of, if anything. It also says "SECURED
BY UNITED STATES CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS" You can now clearly understand why
320
our government and private sector are so deeply in debt. All we use for money is (monetized) DEBTS.
The switch from wealth based money to debt-based money was in the final stage of completion. All that
was left was to remove all gold and silver based currency out of circulation.
"I cannot morally blame all Americans for allowing, for instance, the birth of the Federal Reserve System
(a private cartel with full control over the issuance of national debt) and the money destruction that has
followed. They are simply ignorant about it and don't know what happened or what is happening. They
think that prices go up rather than that dollars go down. Unsound money imposes an environment of
immorality, which in turn makes people behave in different ways for reasons they know not. Sometimes
you can blame immorality for the imposition of bad structures (bad people do it with full knowledge of
what they are doing), but sometimes it is simply stupidity. People revere
democracy, but democracy ends in plunder by the majority. Are people immoral for supporting
democracy? I think rather that they lack a deep understanding of its essence. At a very deep level, I
would say that the reason such structures are created is due to both a lack of knowledge and a false
morality, which in turn is due to a lack of knowledge."
The True American Flag The Gold Fringed Flag
321
The flag of our nation is described and specified at law.1 Yet today more than one flag is in use in the
United States, one is red, white and blue, and the other is red, white, blue and GOLD.
In our history the national flag changed a number of times. On June 15, 1775, the Continental Congress
appointed General Washington to take "supreme command of the forces raised, and to be raised, in the
defense of American liberty." A battle flag for this force was subsequently displayed on the first
anniversary of the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia in July 1777. A resolution passed by the
Continental Congress on June 14, 1777 (Flag Day) describes the official national Flag for the United
States of America. It had thirteen stripes and stars. A Flag with fifteen stripes and stars, known as the
1795 Fort McHenry flag, was authorized by an Act of Congress and was flown during the War of 1812.
This flag inspired Francis Scott Key to write "The Star-Spangled Banner." In March 1818 an Act of
Congress returned the Flag to thirteen stripes with 20 stars and ordered the addition of one star for each
new State, to take effect the 4th day of July following the admission of that State.
A gold fringed flag is a battle flag reserved to the General of the Army for use over military headquarters
and to display at courts-martial. The Commander-In-Chief, as the civilian authority over a lawfully
standing national militia or Army, may designate that flag's use elsewhere. This gives a president, when
acting as Commander-In-Chief, power to place the government's battle flag wherever he wishes to
establish jurisdiction of the military force. In 1925, an interpretation of statute law by the Attorney
General of the United States clarified the intent and purpose of gold fringes or adornments to the
national Flag to be within the discretion of the president as Commander-In-Chief.
"Placing of fringe on national flag, dimensions of flag, and arrangement of stars in the union are matters
of detail not controlled by statute, but are within the discretion of President as Commander- In-Chief of
Army and Navy." 3 Thus, a gold fringed flag, often seen upon a staff or flagpole with a gold eagle atop
it, or with gold streamers or tassels, is NOT the lawful, or OFFICIAL, Flag of our Nation.
A gold fringed flag used widely by courts, schools, service organizations and private individuals is NOT
a symbol of our constitutional republic, or national Union of States. It signifies a military jurisdictional
presence.
One official difference between the two flags is that when the fringe is placed around the Flag it denotes
a military battle flag, not a national Flag. Now the lawful status of a Citizen becomes important. For in a
military jurisdiction, where the court-martial tribunal displays the fringed battle flag, it may impose
criminal sanctions for issues involving contracts, without due process of law. In a Judicial Department
court under the national Flag, as described in the Constitution for the United States of America, as well
as in State Constitutions, due process must be observed and followed, with all the protection of
Constitutional Law.
322
The Founding Fathers, through the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, secured the sovereignty of the
States for WE THE PEOPLE. A flag of bordered design, like the fringed battle flag, denotes that the
jurisdiction of the federal government is present. If the courtrooms in your State display gold fringed
flags, who is exercising jurisdiction?
1. Proper display of the Flag is covered in 36 USCS §§ 141 et seq.; 35 Am Jur 2d, Flag §§ 1, 7; 61 Stat.
642 (July 30,
1947) and; R.S. § 1792.
2. Congress of 1777, "...that the Flag of the United States be thirteen stripes alternate red and white;
that the union (a device emblematic of any political union) be thirteen stars, white in a blue field,
representing a new constellation."
3. Interpretive Notes and Decisions, to 4 USCS § 1.
Senate passes $2.8 trillion spending plan for 2007
WASHINGTON (AP) — Congress pushed the ceiling on the national debt to nearly $9 trillion Thursday,
and the House and Senate promptly voted for major spending initiatives for the war in Iraq, hurricane
relief and education. (On Deadline: What can you buy with $9 trillion?)
The House approved $92 billion in new money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and for relief along
the hurricane ravaged Gulf Coast. (Related: Bill aids war, Katrina efforts)
The Senate adopted a $2.8 trillion budget blueprint that anticipates deficits greater than $350 billion for
both this year and next. The spending blueprint, approved 51-49, little resembles President Bush's
proposal last month for the budget year that begins Oct. 1.
To the disappointment of budget hawks, the Senate's measure would break Bush's proposed caps on
spending for programs such as education, low-income heating subsidies and health research. All told,
senators endorsed more than $16 billion in increases above Bush's proposed $873 billion cap on
spending appropriated by Congress each year. Vice President Dick Cheney was on hand for a possible
tie-breaking vote, but that proved unnecessary. Senators earlier voted 52-48 to send Bush a measure
that would allow the government to borrow an additional $781 billion and prevent a first-ever default on
Treasury notes. As a result, the government could pay for the war in Iraq without raising taxes or
cutting popular domestic programs. The budget blueprint advanced without Cheney's vote in the
Republican-led Senate when Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu supported the plan after winning
concessions to help her hurricane-damaged state of Louisiana and rest of the Gulf Coast.
She won inclusion of a proposal that could provide up $2 billion a year for levee and coastal restoration
projects. The money would come from auctioning television airwaves to wireless companies and from
potential oil lease revenues from exploration in an Alaskan wildlife refuge.
Among the specific votes for the budget plan were:
_$3 billion more for heating subsidies for the poor. It passed 51-49.
_$7 billion more for education, health and worker safety accounts. It passed 73-27.
_$3.7 billion more for military personnel costs.
_$1.2 billion more for aviation security and stopping Bush's proposed increase in airline ticket taxes.
They advanced by voice vote.
_$1 billion more for benefits for military survivors.
The Senate votes Thursday set up a confrontation with the House, which is certain to oppose the
additional spending. In fact, the Senate's moves appear to make it less likely that Congress will settle on
a final budget plan this spring. House Republicans will not release their budget until after next week's
congressional recess. "House conservatives are going to look at this budget and say, 'Whoa, what
happened to fiscal conservatism,'" said top Budget Committee Democrat Kent Conrad of North Dakota.
The votes dismayed deficit hawks such as Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H. He
already had decided to drop Bush's proposals to cut the growth of Medicare, strengthen tax-free health
savings accounts and advance legislation to make permanent his 2001 tax cuts.
The White House issued a tepid statement supporting the plan despite the numerous setbacks
experienced on the floor. "While the Administration will continue to seek entitlement reforms and the
323
elimination of additional discretionary spending ... we recognize that this is an important first step in the
congressional process," said Joshua B. Bolten, director of the White House budget office.
Republicans are eager to show their conservative supporters that they are getting serious about cracking
down on spending. Last weekend, GOP presidential aspirants at the Southern Republican Leadership
Conference in Memphis, promised to be more thrifty with the people's money.
But GOP moderates such as Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania apparently did not get the message. His
amendment to add $7 billion for education, health and labor programs won support from most
Republicans, including Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, who has criticized Congress for
embarking "down a wayward path of wasteful Washington spending."
"All the talk in Memphis just doesn't comport with the realities of these important items" such as
education and health research, Specter said.
The debt limit increase was the fourth of Bush's presidency, totaling $3 trillion. With the budget deficit
near record levels, an additional increase in the debt limit almost certainly will be required next year.
Treasury Secretary John Snow applauded Congress for "protecting the full faith and credit of the United
States." He said it ensures that the government "can deliver on promises already made, such as Social
Security and Medicare payments and aid for the victims of the 2005 hurricanes."
The present limit on the debt is $8.2 trillion. The increase is an unhappy necessity — the alternative
would be a disastrous first-ever default on U.S. Obligations — that greatly overshadowed a mostly
symbolic, week long debate on the GOP's budget resolution.
Democrats blasted the bill, saying it was needed because of fiscal mismanagement by Bush, who came to
office when the government was running record surpluses. "When it comes to deficits, this president
owns all the records," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "The three largest deficits in our
nation's history have all occurred under this administration's watch." Unlike last year, when Congress
passed a bill trimming $39 billion from the deficit through curbs to Medicaid, Medicare and student loan
subsidies, Senate GOP leaders have abandoned plans to cut mandatory programs.
324
325
Declaration of Independence
The Full Text Of The Declaration of Independence
326
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have
connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the
Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should
declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these
rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish
it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as
to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments
long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that
mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which
they are accustomed. 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. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now
the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of
Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an
absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation
till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would
relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their
Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the
people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers,
incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time
exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization
of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new
Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their
salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their
substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws;
giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
327
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of
these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary
government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the
same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our
Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases
whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and
tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and
totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become
the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the
merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and
conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions
have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a
Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by
their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our
emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them
by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and
correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in
the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace
Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the
Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of
these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and
Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection
between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent
States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other
Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm
reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our
sacred Honor.
— John Hancock
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
328
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James
Wilson, George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee,
Carter Braxton
North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
Thomas Jefferson's Story Of The Declaration
Nothing of particular excitement occurring for a considerable time our countrymen
seemed to fall into a state of insensibility to our situation. The duty on tea not yet repealed & the
Declaratory act of a right in the British parliament to bind us by their laws in all cases whatsoever, still
suspended over us. But a court of inquiry held in R. Island in 1772 [*see note in commentary following],
with a power to send persons to England to be tried for offences committed here was considered at our
session of the spring of 1773 as demanding attention. Not thinking our old & leading members up to the
point of forwardness & zeal which the times required, Mr. Henry, R. H. Lee, Francis L. Lee, Mr. Carr &
myself agreed to meet in the evening in a private room [the Apollo room, pictured below] of the Raleigh
to consult on the state of things.
There may have been a member or two more whom I do not recollect. We were all sensible that the
most urgent of all measures was that of coming to an understanding with all the other colonies to
consider the British claims as a common cause to all, & to produce an unity of action: and for this
purpose that a committee of correspondence in each colony would be the best instrument for
intercommunication: and that their first measure would probably be to propose a meeting of deputies
from every colony at some central place, who should be charged with the direction of the measures
which should be taken by all.We therefore drew up the resolutions which may be seen in Wirt pa 87. The
329
consulting members proposed to me to move them, but I urged that it should be done by Mr. Carr, my
friend & brother in law, then a new member to whom I wished an opportunity should be given of making
known to the house his great worth & talents. It was so agreed; he moved them, they were agreed to
nem. con. and a committee of correspondence appointed of whom Peyton Randolph, the Speaker, was
chairman.
The Govr. (then Ld. Dunmore) dissolved us, but the committee met the next day, prepared a circular
letter to the Speakers of the other colonies, inclosing to each a copy of the resolutions and left it in
charge with their chairman to forward them by expresses.
The next event which excited our sympathies for Massachusetts was the Boston port bill, by which that
port was to be shut up on the 1st of June, 1774. This arrived while we were in session in the spring of
that year. The lead in the house on these subjects being no longer left to the old members, Mr. Henry, R.
H. Lee, Fr. L. Lee, 3 or 4 other members, whom I do not recollect, and myself, agreeing that we must
boldly take an unequivocal stand in the line with Massachusetts, determined to meet and consult on the
proper measures in the council chamber, for the benefit of the library in that room. We were under
conviction of the necessity of arousing our people from the lethargy into which they had fallen as to
passing events; and thought that the appointment of a day of general fasting & prayer would be most
likely to call up & alarm their attention. No example of such a solemnity had existed since the days of
our distresses in the war of '55, since which a new generation had grown up. With the help therefore of
Rushworth, [a popular book, John Rushworth's Historical Collections] whom we rummaged over for
the revolutionary precedents & forms of the Puritans of that day, preserved by him, we cooked up a
resolution, somewhat modernizing their phrases, for appointing the 1st day of June, on which the Port
bill was to commence, for a day of fasting, humiliation & prayer, to implore heaven to avert from us the
evils of civil war, to inspire us with firmness in support of our rights, and to turn the hearts of the King
& parliament to moderation & justice. To give greater emphasis to our proposition, we agreed to wait
the next morning on Mr. Nicholas, whose grave & religious character was more in unison with the tone
of our resolution and to solicit him to move it. We accordingly went to him in the morning. He moved it
the same day; the 1st of June was proposed and it passed without opposition. The Governor dissolved
us as usual.
We retired to the Apollo as before, agreed to an association, [see comments above] and instructed the
committee of correspondence to propose to the corresponding committees of the other colonies to
appoint deputies to meet in Congress at such place, annually, as should be convenient to direct, from
time to time, the measures required by the general interest: and we declared that an attack on any one
colony should be considered as an attack on the whole. This was in May. We further recommended to
the several counties to elect deputies to meet at Williamsburg the 1st of August ensuing, to consider the
state of the colony, & particularly to appoint delegates to a general Congress, should that measure be
acceded to by the committees of correspondence generally. It was acceded to, Philadelphia was
appointed for the place, and the 5th of September for the time of meeting. We returned home, and in our
several counties invited the clergy to meet assemblies of the people on the 1st of June, to perform the
ceremonies of the day, & to address to them discourses suited to the occasion.
The people met generally, with anxiety & alarm in their countenances, and the effect of the day thro' the
whole colony was like a shock of electricity, arousing every man & placing him erect & solidly on his
centre. They chose universally delegates for the convention.
Being elected one for my own county I prepared a draught of instructions [see comments above] to be
given to the delegates whom we should send to the Congress, and which I meant to propose at our
meeting. In this I took the ground which, from the beginning I had thought the only one orthodox or
tenable, which was that the relation between Gr. Br. and these colonies was exactly the same as that of
England & Scotland after the accession of James & until the Union, and the same as her present
relations with Hanover, having the same Executive chief but no other necessary political connection; and
330
that our emigration from England to this country gave her no more rights over us, than the emigrations
of the Danes and Saxons gave to the present authorities of the mother country over England. In this
doctrine however I had never been able to get any one to agree with me but Mr. Wythe. He concurred in
it from the first dawn of the question What was the political relation between us & England? Our other
patriots Randolph, the Lees [F.L. Lee, R.H. Lee], Nicholas, Pendleton stopped at the half-way house of
John Dickinson who admitted that England had a right to regulate our commerce, and to lay duties on it
for the purposes of regulation, but not of raising revenue. But for this ground there was no foundation in
compact, in any acknowledged principles of colonization, nor in reason: expatriation being a natural
right, and acted on as such, by all nations, in all ages. I set out for Williamsburg some days before that
appointed for our meeting, but was taken ill of a dysentery on the road, & unable to proceed. I sent on
therefore to Williamsburg two copies of my draught, the one under cover to Peyton Randolph, who I
knew would be in the chair of the convention, the other to Patrick Henry. Whether Mr. Henry
disapproved the ground taken, or was too lazy to read it (for he was the laziest man in reading I ever
knew) I never learned: but he communicated it to nobody. Peyton Randolph informed the convention he
had received such a paper from a member prevented by sickness from offering it in his place, and he laid
it on the table for perusal. It was read generally by the members, approved by many, but thought too
bold for the present state of things; but they printed it in pamphlet form under the title of "A Summary
view of the rights of British America." It found its way to England, was taken up by the opposition,
interpolated a little by Mr. Burke so as to make it answer opposition purposes, and in that form ran
rapidly thro' several editions. This information I had from Parson Hurt, who happened at the time to be
in London, whether he had gone to receive clerical orders. And I was informed afterwards by Peyton
Randolph that it had procured me the honor of having my name inserted in a long list of proscriptions
enrolled in a bill of attainder commenced in one of the houses of parliament, but suppressed in embryo
by the hasty step of events which warned them to be a little cautious. Montague, agent of the House of
Burgesses in England made extracts from the bill, copied the names, and sent them to Peyton Randolph.
The names I think were about 20 which he repeated to me, but I recollect those only of Hancock, the
two Adamses [John, Samuel], Peyton Randolph himself, Patrick Henry, & myself.1
The convention met on the 1st of August, renewed their association, appointed delegates to the
Congress, gave them instructions very temperately & properly expressed, both as to style & matter; and
they repaired to Philadelphia at the time appointed.
The splendid proceedings of that Congress at their 1st session belong to general history, are known to
every one, and need not therefore be noted here. They terminated their session on the 26th of October,
to meet again on the 10th May ensuing. The convention at their ensuing session of Mar, '75, approved of
the proceedings of Congress, thanked their delegates and reappointed the same persons to represent the
colony at the meeting to be held in May: and foreseeing the probability that Peyton Randolph their
president and Speaker also of the House of Burgesses might be called off, they added me, in that event
to the delegation.
The Constitution of the United States
Preamble
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure
domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America.
331
Article. I. - The Legislative Branch Note
Section 1 - The Legislature
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall
consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Section 2 - The House
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People
of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of
the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and
been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of
that State in which he shall be chosen.
(Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be
included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by
adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and
excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.) (The previous sentence in parentheses
was modified by the 14th Amendment, section 2.) The actual Enumeration shall be made within three
Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of
ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed
one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such
enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts
eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four,
Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five
and Georgia three.
When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue
Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole
Power of Impeachment.
Section 3 - The Senate
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the
Legislature thereof,) (The preceding words in parentheses superseded by 17th Amendment, section
1.) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as
equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the
Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third
Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; (and if
Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the
Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which
shall then fill such Vacancies.) (The preceding words in parentheses were superseded by the 17th
Amendment, section 2.)
No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years
a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which
he shall be chosen.
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless
they be equally divided.
332
The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice
President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall
be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall
preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members
present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and
disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the
Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment,
according to Law.
Section 4 - Elections, Meetings
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be
prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or
alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall (be on the first Monday
in December,) (The preceding words in parentheses were superseded by the 20th Amendment,
section 2.) unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.
Section 5 - Membership, Rules, Journals, Adjournment
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a
Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day
to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under
such Penalties as each House may provide.
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior,
and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.
Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting
such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either
House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for
more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
Section 6 - Compensation
(The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained
by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.) (The preceding words in parentheses
were modified by the 27th Amendment.) They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach
of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective
Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House,
they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil
Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments
whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United
States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose
or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
333
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become
a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he
shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the
Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two
thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the
other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it
shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and
Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of
each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays
excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had
signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a
Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives
may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the
United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by
him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules
and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts
and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts
and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies
throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and
Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and
Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of
Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land
and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than
two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and
repel Invasions;
334
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as
may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles
square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the
Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the
Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines,
Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing
Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in
any Department or Officer thereof.
Section 9 - Limits on Congress
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to
admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight,
but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or
Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration
herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over
those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties
in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a
regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published
from time to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or
Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office,
or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal;
coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of
Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or
grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports,
except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all
Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the
United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War
in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or
engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
335
Article. II. - The Executive Branch Note
Section 1 - The President Note1 Note2
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his
Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term,
be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors,
equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the
Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the
United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
(The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at
least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the
Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and
transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the
Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives,
open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number
of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors
appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes,
then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if
no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner
chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation
from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members
from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every
Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors
shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate
shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.) (This clause in parentheses was superseded by
the 12th Amendment.)
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give
their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of
this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that
Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident
within the United States.
(In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to
discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and
the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the
President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall
act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.) (This clause in
parentheses has been modified by the 20th and 25th Amendments.)
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be
increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive
within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,
336
and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the
Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the
Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject
relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and
Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two
thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of
the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme
Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise
provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the
Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law,
or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate,
by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend
to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on
extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between
them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think
proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be
faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Section 4 - Disqualification
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on
Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Article III. - The Judicial Branch Note
Section 1 - Judicial powers
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior
Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme
and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for
their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the
Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all
Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and
maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies
between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of
different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States,
and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in
parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)
337
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall
be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the
supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and
under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in
the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State,
the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section 3 - Treason Note
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their
Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the
Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall
work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Article. IV. - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of
every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts,
Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several
States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be
found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be
delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
(No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another,
shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour,
But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.) (This
clause in parentheses is superseded by the 13th Amendment.)
Section 3 - New States
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or
erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or
more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well
as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the
Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so
construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Section 4 - Republican government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and
shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive
(when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
338
Article. V. - Amendment Note1 - Note2 - Note3
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments
to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall
call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and
Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several
States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be
proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One
thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth
Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage
in the Senate.
Article. VI. - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as
valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all
Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or
Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures,
and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound
by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a
Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Article. VII. - Ratification Documents
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this
Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September
in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the
United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names.
Note
Go Washington - President and deputy from Virginia
New Hampshire - John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman
Massachusetts - Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King
Connecticut - Wm Saml Johnson, Roger Sherman
New York - Alexander Hamilton
New Jersey - Wil Livingston, David Brearley, Wm Paterson, Jona. Dayton
339
Pensylvania - B Franklin, Thomas Mifflin, Robt Morris, Geo. Clymer, Thos FitzSimons, Jared Ingersoll,
James Wilson, Gouv Morris
Delaware - Geo. Read, Gunning Bedford jun, John Dickinson, Richard Bassett, Jaco. Broom
Maryland - James McHenry, Dan of St Tho Jenifer, Danl Carroll
Virginia - John Blair, James Madison Jr.
North Carolina - Wm Blount, Richd Dobbs Spaight, Hu Williamson
South Carolina - J. Rutledge, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Charles Pinckney, Pierce Butler
Georgia - William Few, Abr Baldwin
Attest: William Jackson, Secretary
The Amendments Note
The following are the Amendments to the Constitution. The first ten Amendments collectively are
commonly known as the Bill of Rights. History
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment 3 - Quartering of Soldiers. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in
time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons
or things to be seized.
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or
indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in
340
actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be
twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private
property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial
jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been
previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be
confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his
favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases. Ratified 12/15/1791.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by
jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the
United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments
inflicted.
Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others
retained by the people.
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits. Ratified 2/7/1795. Note History
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity,
commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens
or Subjects of any Foreign State.
Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice-President. Ratified 6/15/1804. Note History The
Electoral College
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President,
one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in
their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-
341
President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted
for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and
transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the
Senate;
The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all
the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be
a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from
the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President,
the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the
President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a
quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a
majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not
choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of
March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other
constitutional disability of the President.
The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such
number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then
from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the
purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole
number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President
shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865. History
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall
have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any
law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers,
counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to
vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States,
Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the
Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of
age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or
other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of
such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-
President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having
342
previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member
of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of
the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or
comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such
disability.
4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for
payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be
questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation
incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or
emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote. Ratified 2/3/1870. History
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States
or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913. Note History
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived,
without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Amendment 17 - Senators Elected by Popular Vote. Ratified 4/8/1913. History
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the
people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have
the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such
State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may
empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by
election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before
it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
Amendment 18 - Liquor Abolished. Ratified 1/16/1919. Repealed by Amendment 21, 12/5/1933.
History
1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of
intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United
States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.
3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution
by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date
343
of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
Amendment 19 - Women's Suffrage. Ratified 8/18/1920. History
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or
by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Amendment 20 - Presidential, Congressional Terms. Ratified 1/23/1933. History
1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the
terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such
terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then
begin.
2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the
3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.
3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died,
the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time
fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice
President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law
provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified,
declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and
such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the
House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved
upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice
President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.
5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.
6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution
by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its
submission.
Amendment 21 - Amendment 18 Repealed. Ratified 12/5/1933. History
1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for
delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
3. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution
by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of
the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
Amendment 22 - Presidential Term Limits. Ratified 2/27/1951. History
1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held
344
the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other
person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this
Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by
the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as
President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of
President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution
by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its
submission to the States by the Congress.
Amendment 23 - Presidential Vote for District of Columbia. Ratified 3/29/1961. History
1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as
the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole
number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a
State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by
the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President,
to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as
provided by the twelfth article of amendment.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Amendment 24 - Poll Tax Barred. Ratified 1/23/1964. History
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice
President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress,
shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax
or other tax.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Amendment 25 - Presidential Disability and Succession. Ratified 2/10/1967. Note History
1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President
shall become President.
2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice
President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the
House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of
his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties
shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive
departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro
tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the
President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately
assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of
345
the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers
and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the
executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days
to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their
written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.
Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty eight hours for that purpose if not in
session. If the Congress, within twenty one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if
Congress is not in session, within twenty one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by
two thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his
office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the
President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
Amendment 26 - Voting Age Set to 18 Years. Ratified 7/1/1971. History
1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be
denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Amendment 27 - Limiting Congressional Pay Increases. Ratified 5/7/1992. History
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect,
until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
This is from the Congressional Record Of 1917
The Trading With the Enemy Act
(Chapter 106 of the War Powers Act of 1917)
Public Law No. 65-91
(40 Stat. L. 411)
October 6, 191
CHAP. 106.
An Act To define, regulate, and punish trading with the enemy, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in
Congress assembled, That this Act shall be known as the "Trading with the enemy Act."
SEC. 2. That the word "enemy," as used herein, shall be deemed to mean, for the purposes
of such trading and of this Act--
a Any individual, partnership, or other body of individuals, of any nationality,
resident within the territory (including that occupied by the military and naval
346
forces) of any nation with which the United States is at war, or resident outside
the United States and doing business within such territory, and any corporation
incorporated within such territory of any nation with which the United States is at
war or incorporated within any country other than the United States and doing
business within such territory.
b The government of my nation with which the United States is at war, or any
political or municipal subdivision thereof, or any officer, official, agent, or agency
thereof.
c Such other individuals, or body or class of individuals, as may be natives, citizens, or
subjects of any nation with which the United States is at war, other than citizens of
the United States, wherever resident or wherever doing business, as the President, if
he shall find the safety of the United States or the successful prosecution of the war
shall so require, may, by proclamation, include within the term "enemy."
The words "ally of enemy," as used herein, shall be deemed to mean--
a Any individual, partnership, or other body of individuals, of any nationality,
resident within the territory (including that occupied by the military and naval
forces) of any nation which is an ally of a nation with which the United States is at
war, or resident outside the United States and doing business within such territory
of such ally nation, or incorporated within any country other than the United
States and doing business within such territory.
b The government of any nation with which is an ally of a nation with which the
United States is at war, or any political or municipal subdivision of such ally
nation, or any officer, official, agent, or agency thereof.
c Such other individuals, or body or class of individuals, as may be natives, citizens, or
subjects of any nation which is an ally of a nation with which the United States is at
war, other than citizens of the United States, wherever resident or wherever doing
business, as the President, if he shall find the safety of the United States or the
successful prosecution of the war shall so require, may, by proclamation, include
within the term "ally of enemy."
The word "person," as used herein, shall be deemed to mean an individual, partnership,
association, company, or other unincorporated body of individuals, or corporation or body
politic.
The words "United States," as used herein, shall be deemed to mean all land and water,
continental or insular, in any way within the jurisdiction of the United States or occupied by
the military or naval forces thereof.
The words "the beginning of the war," as used herein, shall be deemed to mean midnight
ending the day on which Congress has declared or shall declare war or the existence of a
state of war.
The words "end of the war," as used herein, shall be deemed to mean the date of
proclamation of exchange of ratifications of the treaty of peace, unless the President shall, by
proclamation, declare a prior date, in which case the date so proclaimed shall be deemed to
be the "end of the war" within the meaning of this Act.
The words "bank or banks," as used herein, shall be deemed to mean and include national
347
banks, State banks, trust companies, or other banks or banking associations doing business
under the laws of the United States, or of any State of the United States.
The words "to trade," as used herein, shall be deemed to mean--
a Pay, satisfy, compromise, or give security for the payment or satisfaction of any
debt or obligation.
b Draw, accept, pay, present for acceptance or payment, or indorse any negotiable
instrument or chose in action.
c Enter into, carry on, complete, or perform any contract, agreement, or obligation.
d Buy or sell, loan or extend credit, trade in, deal with, exchange, transmit, transfer,
assign, or otherwise dispose of, or receive any form of property.
e To have any form of business or commercial communication or intercourse with.
SEC 3. That it shall be unlawful --
a For any person in the United States, except with
the license of the President, granted to such person, or to the enemy, or ally of enemy, as
provided in this Act, to trade, or attempt to trade, either directly or indirectly, with, to, or
from, or for, or on account of, or on behalf of, or for the benefit of, any other person, with
knowledge or reasonable cause to believe that such other person is an enemy or ally of
enemy, or is conducting or taking part in such trade, directly or indirectly, for, or on account
of, or on behalf of, or for the benefit of, an enemy or ally of enemy.
b For any person, except with the license of the
president, to transport or attempt to transport into or from the United States, or for any
owner, master, or other person in charge of a vessel of American registry to transport or
attempt to transport from any place to any other place, any subject or citizen of an enemy or
ally of enemy nation, with knowledge or reasonable cause to believe that the person
transported or attempted to be transported is such subject or citizen.
c For any person (other than a person in the service
of the United States Government or of the Government of any nation, except that of an
enemy or ally of enemy nation, and other than such persons or classes of persons as may be
exempted hereunder by the President or by such person as he may direct), to send, or take
out of, bring into, or attempt to send, or take out of, or bring into the United States, any
letter or other writing or tangible form of communication, except in the regular course of the
mail; and it shall be unlawful for any per- son to send, take, or transmit, or attempt to send,
take, or transmit out of the United States, any letter or other writing, book, map, plan, or
other paper, picture, or any telegram, cablegram, or wireless message, or other form of
communication intended for or to be
348
delivered, directly or indirectly, to an enemy or ally of enemy: Provided, however, That any
person may send, take or transmit out of the United States anything herein forbidden if he
shall first submit the same to the Presi- dent, or to such officer as the President may direct,
and shall obtain the license or consent of the President, under such rules and regulations, and
with such exemp- tions as shall be prescribed by the President.
d Whenever, during the present war, the President
shall deem that the public safety demands it, he may cause to be censored under such rules
and regulations as he may from time to time establish, communications by mail, cable, radio,
or other means of transmission passing between the United States and any foreign coun- try
he may from time to time specify, or which may be carried by any vessel or other means of
transportation touching at any port, place, or territory of the United States and bound to or
from any foreign country. Any person who willfully evades or attempts to evade the
submission of any such communication to such censor- ship or willfully uses or attempts to
use any code or other device for the purpose of concealing from such censorship the
intended meaning of such communication shall be punished as provided in section sixteen of
this Act.
SEC. 4. (a) Every enemy or ally of enemy insurance or reinsurance company, and every
enemy or ally of enemy, doing business within the United States through an agency or
branch office, or otherwise, may, within thirty days after the passage of this Act, apply to the
President for a license to continue to do business; and, within thirty days after such
application, the President may enter an order either granting or refusing to grant such
license. The license, if granted, may be temporary or otherwise, and for such period of time,
and may con- tain such provisions and conditions regulating the busi- ness, agencies,
managers and trustees and the control and disposition of the funds of the company, or of
such enemy or ally of enemy, as the President shall deem necessary for the safety of the
United States; and any license granted hereunder may be revoked or regranted or renewed in
such manner and at such times as the President shall determine: Provided, however, That
rea- sonable notice of his intent to refuse to grant a license or to revoke a license granted to
any reinsurance com- pany shall be given by him to all insurance companies incorporated
within the United States and known to the President to be doing business with such
reinsurance company: Provided further, That no insurance company, organized within the
United States, shall be obligated to continue any existing contract, entered into prior to the
beginning of the war, with any enemy or ally of enemy insurance or reinsurance company,
but any such com- pany may abrogate and cancel any such contract by serving thirty days'
notice in writing upon the President of its election to abrogate such contract.
For a period of thirty days after the passage of this Act, and further pending the entry of
such order by the President, after application made by any enemy or ally of enemy insurance
or reinsurance company, within such thirty days as above provided, the provisions of the
President's proclamation of April sixth, nineteen hundred and seventeen, relative to agencies
in the United States of certain insurance companies, as modified by the pro- visions of the
President's proclamation of July thirteenth, nineteen hundred and seventeen, relative to
marine and war-risk insurance, shall remain in full force and effect so far as it applies to such
German insurance companies, and the conditions of said proclamation of April sixth,
nineteen hundred and seventeen, as modified by said proclamation of July thirteenth,
nineteen hundred and seventeen, shall also during said period of thirty days after the passage
of this Act, and pending the order of the president as herein provided, apply to any enemy or
349
ally of enemy insurance or reinsurance company, anything in this Act to the contrary
notwithstanding. It shall be unlawful for any enemy or ally of enemy insurance or
reinsurance company, to whom license is granted, to transmit out of the United States any
funds belonging to or held for the benefit of such company or to use any such funds as the
basis for the establishment directly or indirectly of any credit within or outside of the United
States to, or for the benefit of, or on behalf of, or on ac- count of, an enemy or ally of
enemy.
For a period of thirty days after the passage of this Act, and further pending the entry of
such order by the president, after application made within such thirty days by any enemy or
ally of enemy, other than an insurance or reinsurance company as above provided, it shall be
lawful for such enemy or ally of enemy to continue to do business in this country and for any
person to trade with, to, from, for, on account of, on behalf of or for the benefit of such
enemy or ally of enemy, anything in this Act to the contrary notwithstanding: Provided,
however, That the provisions of sections three and sixteen hereof shall apply to any act or
attempted act of transmission or transfer of money or other property out of the United
States and to the use or attempted use of such money or property as the basis for the
establishment of any credit within or outside of the United States to, or for the benefit of, or
on behalf of, or on account of, an enemy or ally of enemy.
If no license is applied for within thirty days after the passage of this Act, or if a license shall
be refused to any enemy or ally of enemy, whether insurance or reinsurance company, or
other person, making application, or if any license granted shall be revoked by the President,
the provisions of sections three and sixteen hereof shall forth- with apply to all trade or to
any attempt to trade with, to, from, for, by, on account of, or on behalf of, or for the benefit
of such company or other person: Provided, however, That after such refusal or revocation,
anything in this Act to the contrary notwithstanding, it shall be lawful for a policyholder or
for an insurance company, not an enemy or ally of enemy, holding insurance or hav- ing
effected reinsurance in or with such enemy or ally of enemy insurance or reinsurance
company, to receive payment of, and for such enemy or ally of enemy insurance or
reinsurance company to pay any premium, return pre- mium, claim, money, security, or other
property due or which may become due on or in respect to such insurance or reinsurance in
force at the date of such refusal or revocation of license; and nothing in this Act shall vitiate
or nullify then existing policies or contracts of insurance or reinsurance, or the conditions
thereof; and any such policyholder or insurance company, not an enemy or ally of enemy,
having any claim to or upon money or other property of the enemy or ally of enemy
insurance or reinsurance company in the custody or control of the alien property custodian,
hereinafter provided for, or of the Treasurer of the United States, may make application for
the payment thereof and may institute suit as provided in section nine hereof.
b That, during the present war, no enemy, or ally of
enemy, and no partnership of which he is a member or was a member at the beginning of the
war, shall for any purpose assume or use any name other than that by which such enemy or
partnership was ordinarily known at the beginning of the war, except under license from the
President.
350
Whenever, during the present war, in the opinion of the President the public safety or public
interest requires, the President may prohibit any or all foreign insurance com- panies from
doing business in the United States, or the President may license such company or
companies to do business upon such terms as he may deem proper.
SEC. 5. (a) That the President, if he shall find it compatible with the safety of the United
States and with the successful prosecution of the war, may by proclamation, suspend the
provisions of this Act so far as they apply to an ally of enemy, and he may revoke or renew
such suspension from time to time; and the President may grant licenses, special or general,
temporary or otherwise, and for such period of time and containing such provisions and
conditions as he shall prescribe, to any person or class of persons to do business as provided
in subsection (a) of section four hereof, and to perform any act made unlawful without such
license in section three hereof, and to file and prosecute applications under subsection (b) of
section ten hereof; and he may revoke or renew such licenses from time to time, if he shall
be of opinion that such grant or revocation or renewal shall be compatible with the safety of
the United States and with the successful prosecution of the war; and he may make such
rules and regulations, not inconsistent with the law, as may be necessary and proper to carry
out the provisions of this Act; and the President may exercise any power or authority
conferred by this Act through such officer or officers as he shall direct.
If the President shall have reasonable cause to believe that any act is about to be performed
in violation of section three hereof he shall have authority to order the postponement of the
performance of such act for a period not exceeding ninety days, pending investigation of the
facts by him.
b That the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and
regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions
in foreign exchange, export or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or
currency, transfers of credit in any form (other than credits relating solely to
transactions to be executed wholly within the United States), and transfers of
evidences of indebtedness or of the ownership of property between the United States
and any foreign country, whether enemy, ally of enemy or otherwise, or between
residents of one or more foreign countries, by any person within the United States;
and he may require any such person engaged in any such transaction to furnish,
under oath, complete information relative thereto, including the production of any
books of account, contracts, letters or other papers, in connection therewith in the
custody or control of such person, either before or after such transaction is
completed.
SEC. 6. That the President is authorized to appoint, prescribe the duties of, and fix the
salary (not to exceed $5,000 per annum) of an official to be known as the alien property
custodian, who shall be empowered to receive all money and property in the United States
due or belonging to an enemy, or ally of enemy, which may be paid, conveyed, transferred,
assigned, or delivered to said custodian under the provisions of this Act; and to hold,
administer, and account for the same under the general direction of the President and as
provided in this Act. The alien property custodian shall give such bond or bonds, and in such
form and amount, and with such security as the President shall prescribe. The President may
further employ in the District of Columbia and elsewhere and fix the compensation of such
clerks, attorneys, investigators, accountants, and other employees as he may find necessary
for the due administration of the provisions of this Act: Provided, That such clerks,
351
investigators, accountants, and other employees shall be appointed from lists of eligibles to
be supplied by the Civil Service Commission and in accordance with the civil-service law:
Provided further, That the President shall cause a detailed report to be made to Congress on
the first day of January of each year of all proceedings had under this Act during the year
preceding. Such report shall contain a list of all persons appointed or employed, with the
salary or compensation paid to each, and a statement of the different kinds of property taken
into custody and the disposition made thereof.
SEC. 7. (a) That every corporation incorporated within the United States, and every
unincorporated association, or company, or trustee, or trustees within the United States,
issuing shares or certificates representing bene- ficial interests, shall, under such rules and
regulations as the President may prescribe and, within sixty days after the passage of this
Act, and at such other times thereafter as the President may require, transmit to the alien
property custodian a full list, duly sworn to, of every officer, director, or stockholder known
to be, or whom the representative of such corporation, association, company, or trustee has
reasonable cause to believe to be an enemy or ally of enemy resident within the territory, or a
subject or citizen residing outside of the United States, of any nation with which the United
States is at war, or resident within the territory, or a subject or citizen residing outside of the
United States, of any ally of any nation with which the United States is at war, together with
the amount of stock or shares owned by each such officer, director, or stockholder, or in
which he has any interest.
The President may also require a similar list to be transmitted of all stock or shares owned
on February third, nineteen hundred and seventeen, by any person now defined as an enemy
or ally of enemy, or in which any such person had any interest; and he may also re- quire a
list to be transmitted of all cases in which said corporation, association, company, or trustee
has reason- able cause to believe that the stock or shares on Feb- ruary third, nineteen
hundred and seventeen, were owned or are owned by such enemy or ally of enemy, though
standing on the books in the name of another: Provided, however, That the name of any
such officer, director, or stockholder shall be stricken permanently or temporarily from such
list by the alien property custodian when he shall be satisfied that he is not such enemy or
ally of enemy.
Any person in the United States who holds or has or shall hold or have cusody or control of
any property beneficial or otherwise, alone or jointly with others, of, for, or on behalf of an
enemy or ally of enemy, or of any person whom he may have reasonable cause to believe to
be an enemy or ally of enemy and any person in the United States who is or shall be indebted
in any way to an enemy or ally of enemy, or to any person whom he may have reasonable
cause to believe to be an enemy or ally of enemy, shall, with such exceptions and under such
rules and regulations as the President shall prescribe, and within thirty days after the passage
of this Act, or within thirty days after such property shall come within his custody or control,
or after such debt shall become due, report the fact to the alien-property custodian by
written statement under oath containing such particulars as said custodian shall require. The
President may also require a similar report of all property so held, of, for, or on behalf of,
and of all debts so owed to, any person now defined as an enemy or ally of enemy, on
February third nineteen hundred and seventeen: Provided, That the name of any person shall
be stricken from the said report by the alien-property custodian, either temporarily or
permanently, when he shall be satisfied that such person is not an enemy or ally of enemy.
The President may extend the time for filing the lists or reports required by this section for
an additional period not exceeding ninety days.
352
b Nothing in this Act contained shall render valid or
legal, or be construed to recognize as valid or legal, any act or transaction constituting trade
with, to, from, for or on account of, or on behalf or for the benefit of an enemy performed
or engaged in since the beginning of the war and prior to the passage of this Act, or any such
act or transaction hereafter performed or engaged in except as authorized hereunder, which
would other- wise have been or be void, illegal, or invalid at law. No conveyance, transfer,
delivery, payment, or loan of money or other property, in violation of section three hereof,
made after the passage of this Act, and not under license as herein provided shall confer or
create any right or remedy in respect thereof; and no person shall by virtue of any
assignment, indorsement, or delivery to him of any debt, bill, note, or other obligation or
chose in action by, from, or on behalf of, or on account of, or for the benefit of an enemy or
ally of enemy have any right or remedy against the debtor, obligor, or other person liable to
pay, fulfill, or perform the same unless said assignment, indorsement, or delivery was made
prior to the beginning of the war or shall be made under license as herein provided, or
unless, if made after the beginning of the war and prior to the date of passage of this Act, the
person to whom the same was made shall prove lack of knowledge and of reasonable cause
to believe on his part that the same was made by, from or on behalf of, or on account of, or
for the benefit of an enemy or ally of enemy; and any person who knowingly pays,
discharges, or satisfies any such debt, note, bill, or other obligation or chose in action shall,
on conviction thereof, be deemed to violate section three hereof: Provided, That nothing in
this Act contained shall prevent the carrying out, completion, or performance of any
contract, agreement, or obligation originally made with or entered into by an enemy or ally
of enemy where, prior to the beginning of the war and not in contemplation thereof, the
interest of such enemy or ally of enemy devolved by assignment or otherwise upon a person
not an enemy or ally of enemy, and no enemy or ally of enemy will he benefited by such
carrying out, completion, or performance otherwise than by release from obligation
thereunder.
Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to prevent pay- ment of money belonging or owing to an
enemy or ally of enemy to a person within the United States not an enemy or ally of enemy,
for the benefit of such person or of any other person within the United States not an enemy
or ally of enemy, if the funds so paid shall have been received prior to the beginning of the
war and such payments arise out of transactions entered into prior to the beginning of the
war, and not in contemplation thereof: Provided, That such payment shall not be made
without the license of the President, general or special, as provided in this Act.
Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to authorize the prosecution of any suit or action at law
or in equity in any court within the United States by an enemy or ally of enemy prior to the
end of the war, except as pro- vided in section ten hereof: Provided, however, That an
enemy or ally of enemy licensed to do business under this Act may prosecute and maintain
any such suit or action so far as the same arises solely out of the business transacted within
the United States under such license and so long as such license remains in full force and
effect: And provided further, That an enemy or ally of enemy may defend by counsel any suit
in equity or action at law which may be brought against him.
Receipt of notice from the President to the effect that, he has reasonable ground to believe
that any person is an enemy or ally of enemy shall be prima facie defense to any one
receiving the same, in any suit or action at law or in equity brought or maintained, or to any
right or set-off or recoupment asserted by, such person and based on failure to complete or
353
perform since the begin- ning of the war any contract or other obligation. In any prosecution
under section sixteen hereof, proof of receipt of notice from the President to the effect that
he has reasonable cause to believe that any person is an enemy or ally of enemy shall be
prima facie evidence that the person receiving such notice has reasonable cause to believe
such other person to be an enemy or ally of enemy within the meaning of section three
hereof.
c If the President shall so require, any money or
other property owing or belonging to or held for, by, on account of, or on behalf of, or for
the benefit of an enemy or ally of enemy not holding a license granted by the President
hereunder, which the President after investiga- tion shall determine is so owing or so belongs
or is so held, shall be conveyed, transferred, assigned, delivered, or paid over to the alien
property custodian.
d If not required to pay, convey, transfer, assign,
or deliver under the provisions of subsection (c) hereof, any person not an enemy or ally of
enemy who owes to, or holds for, or on account of, or on behalf of, or for the benefit of an
enemy or of an ally of enemy not holding license granted by the President hereunder, any
money or other property, or to whom any obligation or form of liability to such enemy or
ally of enemy is presented for payment, may, at his option, with the consent of the President,
pay, convey, transfer, assign, or deliver to the alien property custodian said money or other
property under such rules and regulations as the President shall prescribe.
e No person shall be held liable in any court for or
in respect to anything done or omitted in pursuance of any order, rule, or regulation made by
the President under the authority of this Act.
Any payment, conveyance, transfer, assignment, or delivery of money or property made to
the alien property custodian hereunder shall be a full acquittance and dis- charge for all
purposes of the obligation of the person making the same to the extent of same. The alien
prop- erty custodian and such other persons as the President may appoint shall have power
to execute, acknowledge, and deliver any such instrument or instruments as may be
necessary or proper to evidence upon the record or otherwise such acquittance and
discharge, and shall, in case of payment to the alien property custodian of any debt or
obligation owed to an enemy or ally of enemy, deliver up any notes, bonds, or other
evidences of in- debtedness or obligation, or any security therefor in which such enemy or
ally of enemy had any right or interest that may have come into the possession of the alien
property custodian, with like effect as if he or they, respectively, were duly appointed by the
enemy or ally of enemy, creditor, or obligee. The President shall issue to every person so
appointed a certificate of the appoint- ment and authority of such person, and such
certificate shall be received in evidence in all courts within the United States. Whenever any
such certificate of author- ity shall be offered to any registrar, clerk, or other record- ing
officer, Federal or otherwise, within the United States, such officer shall record the same in
like manner as a power of attorney, and such record or a duly cer- tified copy thereof shall
be received in evidence in all courts of the United States or other courts within the United
States.
354
SEC. 8. (a) That any person not an enemy or ally of enemy holding a lawful mortgage,
pledge, or lien, or other right in the nature of security in property of an enemy or ally of
enemy which, by law or by the terms of the instru- ment creating such mortgage, pledge, or
lien, or right, may be disposed of on notice or presentation or demand and any person not an
enemy or ally of enemy who is a party to any lawful contract with an enemy or ally of
enemy, the terms of which provide for a termination thereof upon notice or for acceleration
of maturity on presenta- tion or demand, may continue to hold said property, and after
default, may dispose of the property in accordance with law or may terminate or mature
such contract by notice or presentation or demand served or made on the alien property
custodian in accordance with the law and the terms of such instrument or contract and under
such rules and regulations as the President shall prescribe and such notice and such
presentation and demand shall have, in all respects, the same force and effect as if duly
served or made upon the enemy or ally of enemy per- sonally: Provided, That no such rule
or regulation shall require that notice or presentation or demand shall be served or made in
any case in which, by law or by the terms of said instrument or contract, no notice, presentation,
or demand was, prior to the passage of this Act, required; and that in case where, by
law or by the terms of such instrument or contract, notice is required, no longer period of
notice shall be required: Provided further, That if, on any such disposition of property, a
surplus shall remain after the satisfaction of the mortgage, pledge, lien, or other right in the
nature of security, notice of that fact shall be given to the President pursuant to such rules
and regulations as he may prescribe, and such surplus shall be held subject to his further
order.
b That any contract entered into prior to the beginning
of the war between any citizen of the United States or any corporation organized
within the United States, and an enemy or ally of an enemy, the terms of which provide for
the delivery, during or after any war in which a present enemy or ally of enemy nation has
been or is now engaged, of anything produced, mined, or manufactured in the United States,
may be abrogated by such citizen or corporation by serving thirty days' notice in writing
upon the alien property custodian of his or its election to abrogate such contract.
c The running of any statute of limitations shall be
suspended with reference to the rights or remedies on any contract or obligation entered into
prior to the be- ginning of the war between parties neither of whom is an enemy or ally of
enemy, and containing any promise to pay or liability for payment which is evidenced by
drafts or other commercial paper drawn against or secured by funds or other property
situated in an enemy or ally of enemy or ally of enemy country, and no suit shall be
maintained on any such contract, or obligation in any court within the United States until
after the end of the war, or until the said funds or property shall be released for the payment
or satisfaction of such contract or obliga- tion: Provided, however, That nothing herein
contained shall be construed to prevent the suspension of the run- ning of the statute of
limitations in all other cases where such suspension would occur under existing law. SEC. 9.
That any person, not an enemy, or ally of enemy, claiming any interest, right, or title in any
money or other property which may have been conveyed, trans- ferred, assigned. delivered,
or paid to the alien property custodian hereunder, and held by him or by the Treasurer of the
United States, or to whom any debt may be owing From an enemy, or ally of enemy, whose
property or any part thereof shall have been conveyed, transferred, as- signed, delivered, or
paid to the alien property custodian hereunder, and held by him or by the Treasurer of the
355
United States, may file with the said custodian a notice of his claim under oath and in such
form and containing such particulars as the said custodian shall require; and the President, if
application is made therefor by the claimant, may, with the assent of the owner of said
property and of all persons claiming any right, title, or interest therein, order the payment,
conveyance, transfer, assignment or delivery to said claimant of the money or other property
so held by the alien property custodian or by the Treas- urer of the United States or of the
interest therein to which the President shall determine said claimant is entitled: Provided,
That no such order by the President shall bar any person from the prosecution of any suit at
law or in equity against the claimant to establish any right, title or interest which he may
have in such money or other property. If the President shall not so order within sixty days
after the filing of such application, or if the claimant shall have filed the notice as above
required and shall have made no application to the President, said claimant may, at any time
before the expiration of six months after the end of the war, institute a suit in equity in the
district court of the United States for the district in which such claimant resides, or, if a
corporation, where it has its principal place of business (to which suit the alien property
custodian or the Treasurer of the United States, as the case may be, shall be made a party
defend- ant), to establish the interest, right, title, or debt so claimed, and if suit shall be so
instituted then the money or other property of the enemy, or ally of enemy, against whom
such interest, right, or title is asserted, or debt claimed, shall be retained in the custody of
the alien property custodian, or in the Treasury of the United States, as provided in this Act,
and until any final judg- ment or decree which shall be entered in favor of the claimant shall
be fully satisfied by payment or convey- ance, transfer, assignment, or delivery by the
defendant or by the alien property custodian or Treasurer of the United States on order of
the court, or until final judg- ment or decree shall be entered against the claimant, or suit
otherwise terminated.
Except as herein provided, the money or other property conveyed, transferred, assigned,
delivered, or paid to the alien property custodian shall not be liable to lien, attach- ment,
garnishment, trustee process, or execution, or sub- ject to any order or decree of any court.
This section shall not apply, however, to money paid to the alien property custodian under
section ten hereof.
SEC. 10. That nothing contained in this Act shall be held to make unlawful any of the
following Acts:
a An enemy, or ally of enemy, may file and prosecute
in the United States an application for letters patent, or for registration of trade-mark,
print, label, or copy- right, and may pay any foes therefor in accordance with and as required
by the provisions of existing law and fees for attorneys or agents for filing and prosecuting
such applications. Any such enemy, or ally of enemy, who is unable during war, or within six
months thereafter, on account of conditions arising out of war, to file any such application,
or to pay any official fee, or to take any action required by law within the period prescribed
by law, may be granted an extension of nine months beyond the expiration of said period,
provided the nation of which the said applicant is a citizen, subject, or corporation shall
extend substantially similar privileges to citizens and corporations of the United States.
b Any citizen of the United States, or any corpora-
356
tion organized within the United States, may, when duly authorized by the President, pay to
an enemy or ally of enemy any tax, annuity, or fee which may be required by the laws of such
enemy or ally of enemy nation in relation to patents and trade-marks, prints, labels, and
copyrights; and any such citizen or corporation may file and prosecute an application for
letters patent or for registration of trade-mark, print, label, or copyright in the country of an
enemy, or of an ally of enemy after first submitting such application to the President and
receiving license so to file and prosecute, and to pay the fees required by law and customary
agents' fees, the maximum amount of which in each case shall be subject to the control of the
President.
c Any citizen of the United States or any corporation
organized within the United States desiring to manufac- ture, or cause to be manufactured, a
machine, manufac- ture, composition of matter, or design, or to carry on, or to use any
trade-mark, print, label or cause to be carried on, a process under any patent or copyrighted
matter owned or controlled by an enemy or ally of enemy at any time during the existence of
a state of war may apply to the President for a license; and the President is hereby
authorized to grant such a license, nonexclusive or exclusive as he shall deem best, provided
he shall be of the opinion that such grant is for the public welfare, and that the applicant is
able and intends in good faith to manufacture, or cause to be manufactured, the machine
manufacture, composition of matter, or design, or to carry on, or cause to be carried on, the
process or to use the trade mark, print, label or copyrighted matter. The President may
prescribe the conditions of this license, including the fixing of prices of articles and products
necessary to the health of the military and naval forces of the United States or the successful
prosecution of the war, and the rules and regulations under which such license may be
granted and the fee which shall be charged therefor, not exceeding $100, and not exceeding
one per centum of the fund deposited as hereinafter provided. Such license shall be a
complete defense to any suit at law or in equity instituted by the enemy or ally of enemy
owners of the letters patent, trade-mark, print, label or copyright, or otherwise, against the
licenses for infringe- ment or for damages, royalty, or other money award on account of
anything done by the licensee under such license, except as provided in subsection (f) hereof.
d The licensee shall file with the President a full
statement of the extent of the use and enjoyment of the license, and of the prices received in
such form and at such stated periods (at least annually) as the President may prescribe; and
the licensee shall pay at such times as may be required to the alien property custodian not to
exceed five per centum of the gross sums received by the licensee from the sale of said
inventions or use of the trade-mark. print, label or copyrighted matter. or, if the President
shall so order, five per centum of the value of the use of such inventions, trade-marks, prints,
labels or copyrighted matter to the licensee as established by the President: and sums so paid
shall be deposited by said alien property custodian forthwith in the Treasury of the United
States as a trust fund for the said license and for the owner of the said patent, trade-mark,
print, label or copyright registration as hereinafter provided, to be paid from the Treasury
upon order of the court as provided in subdivision (f) of this section, or upon the direction
of the alien property custodian.
e Unless surrendered or terminated as provided in
this Act, any license granted hereunder shall continue during the term fixed in the license or
357
in the absence of any such limitation during the term of the patent, trade- mark, print, label,
or copyright registration under which it is granted Upon violation by the licensee of any of
the provisions of this Act, or of the conditions of the license, the President may, after due
notice and hearing, cancel any license granted by him.
f The owner of any patent, trade-mark, print, label,
or copyright under which a license is granted hereunder may, after the end of the war and
until the expiration of one year thereafter, file a bill in equity against the licensee in the
district court of the United States for the district in which the said licensee resides, or, if a
corporation, in which it has its principal place of business (to which suit the Treasurer of the
United States shall be made a party), for recovery from the said licensee for all use and enjoyment
of the said patented invention, trade-mark, print, label, or copyrighted matter:
Provided, however, That whenever suit is brought, as above, notice shall be filed with the
alien property custodian within thirty days after date of entry of suit: Provided further, That
the licensee may make any and all defenses which would be available were no license
granted. The court on due pro- ceedings had may adjudge and decree to the said owner
payment of a reasonable royalty. The amount of said judgment and decree, when final, shall
be paid on order of the court to the owner of the patent from the fund deposited by the
licensee, so far as such deposit will satisfy said judgment and decree; and the said payment
shall be in full or partial satisfaction of said judgment and decree, as the facts may appear;
and if, after payment of all such judgments and decrees, there shall remain any balance of
said deposit, such balance shall be repaid to the licensee on order of the alien property
custodian. If no suit is brought within one year after the end of the war, or no notice is filed
as above required, then the licensee shall not be liable to make any further deposits, and all
funds deposited by him shall be repaid to him on order of the alien property custodian. Upon
entry of suit and notice filed as above required, or upon repayment of funds as above
provided, the liability of the licensee to make further reports to the President shall cease. If
suit is brought as above provided, the court may, at any time, terminate the license, and may,
in such event, issue an injunction to restrain the licensee from infringe- ment thereafter, or
the court, in case the licensee, prior to suit, shall have made investment of capital based on
possession of the license, may continue the license for such period and upon such terms and
with such royalties as it shall find to be just and reasonable.
g Any enemy, or ally of enemy, may institute and
prosecute suits in equity against any person other than a licensee under this Act to enjoin
infringement of letters patent, trade-mark, print, label, and copyrights in the United States
owned or controlled by said enemy or ally of enemy, in the same manner and to the extent
that he would be entitled so to do if the United States was not at war: Provided, That no
final judgment or decree shall be entered in favor of such enemy or ally of enemy by any
court except after thirty days' notice to the alien property custodian. Such notice shall be in
writing and shall be served in the same manner as civil process of Federal courts.
h All powers of attorney heretofore or hereafter
granted by an enemy or ally of enemy to any person with- in the United States, in so far as
they may be requisite to the performance of acts authorized in subsections (a) and
g of this section, shall be valid.
358
h Whenever the publication of an invention by the
granting of a patent may, in the opinion of the President, be detrimental to the public safety
or defense, or may assist the enemy or endanger the successful prosecution of the war, he
may order that the invention be kept secret and withhold the grant of a patent until the end
of the war: Provided, That the invention disclosed in the application for said patent may be
held abandoned upon it being established before or by the Commissioner of Patents that, in
violation of said order, said invention has been published or that an application for a patent
therefor has been filed in any other country, by the inventor or his assigns or legal
representatives, without the consent or approval of the commissioner or under a license of
the President.
When an applicant whose patent is withheld as herein provided and who faithfully obeys the
order of the Presi- dent above referred to shall tender his invention to the Government of the
United States for its use, he shall, if he ultimately receives a patent, have the right to sue for
compensation in the Court of Claims, such right to com- pensation to begin from the date of
the use of the inven- tion by the Government.
SEC. 11. Whenever during the present war the Presi- dent shall find that the public safety so
requires and shall make proclamation thereof it shall be unlawful to import into the United
States from any country named in such proclamation any article or articles mentioned in
such proclamation except at such time or times, and under such regulations or orders, and
subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President shall prescribe, until otherwise
ordered by the President or by Congress: Provided, however, That no preference shall be
given to the ports of one State over those of another.
SEC. 12. That all moneys (including checks and drafts payable on demand) paid to or
received by the alien property custodian pursuant to this Act shall be depos- ited forthwith in
the Treasury of the United States, and may be invested and reinvested by the Secretary of
the Treasury in United States bonds or United States certifi- cates of indebtedness, under
such rules and regulations as the President shall prescribe for such deposit, invest- ment, and
sale of securities; and as soon after the end of the war as the President shall deem
practicable, such securities shall be sold and the proceeds deposited in the Treasury.
All other property of an enemy, or ally of enemy, con- veyed, transferred, assigned,
delivered, or paid to the alien property custodian hereunder shall be safely held and
administered by him except as hereinafter provided; and the President is authorized to
designate as a deposi- tary, or depositaries, of property of an enemy or ally of enemy, any
bank, or banks, or trust company, or trust companies, or other suitable depositary or
depositaries, located and doing business in the United States. The alien property custodian
may deposit with such desig- nated depositary or depositaries, or with the Secretary of the
Treasury, any stocks, bonds, notes, time drafts, time bills of exchange, or other securities, or
property (except money or checks or drafts payable on demand which are required to be
deposited with the Secretary of the Treas- ury) and such depositary or depositaries shall be
author- ized and empowered to collect any dividends or interest or income that may become
due and any maturing obli- gations held for the account of such custodian. Any moneys
collected on said account shall be paid and de- posited forthwith by said depositary or by the
alien prop- erty custodian into the Treasury of the United States as hereinbefore provided.
The President shall require all such designated deposi- taries to execute and file bonds
359
sufficient in his judgment to protect property on deposit, such bonds to be con- ditioned as
he may direct.
The alien property custodian shall be vested with all of the powers of a common-law trustee
in respect of all property, other than money, which shall come into his possession in
pursuance of the provisions of this Act, and, acting under the supervision and direction of
the President, and under such rules and regulations as the President shall prescribe, may
manage such property and do any act or things in respect thereof or make any disposition
thereof or of any part thereof, by sale or otherwise, and exercise any rights which may be or
become appurtenant thereto or to the ownership thereof, if and when necessary to prevent
waste and protect such property and to the end that the interests of the United States in such
property and rights or of such person as may ultimately become entitled thereto, or to the
pro- ceeds thereof, may be preserved and safeguarded. It shall be the duty of every
corporation incorporated within the United States and every unincorporated association. or
company, or trustee, or trustees within the United States issuing shares or certificates
representing bene- ficial interests to transfer such shares or certificates upon its, his, or their
books into the name of the alien property custodian upon demand, accompanied by the
presentation of the certificates which represent such shares or beneficial interests. The alien
property cus- todian shall forthwith deposit in the Treasury of the United States, as
hereinbefore provided, the proceeds of any such property or rights so sold by him. Any
money or property required or authorized by the provisions of this Act to be paid, conveyed,
trans- ferred, assigned, or delivered to the alien property custodian shall, if said custodian
shall so direct by written order, be paid, conveyed, transferred, assigned, or delivered to the
Treasurer of the United States with the same effect as if to the alien property custodian.
After the end of the war any claim of any enemy or of an ally of enemy to any money or
other property received and held by the alien property custodian or deposited in the United
States Treasury, shall be settled as Congress shall direct: Provided, however, That on order
of the President as set forth in section nine hereof, or of the court, as set forth in sections
nine and ten hereof, the alien property custodian or the Treasurer of the United States, as the
case may be, shall forthwith convey, transfer, assign, and pay to the person to whom the
President shall so order, or in whose behalf the court shall enter final judgment or decree,
any property of an enemy or ally of enemy held by said custodian or by said Treasurer, so far
as may be necessary to comply with said order of the President or said final judgment or
decree of the court: And provided further. That the Treasurer of the United States, on order
of the alien property custodian, shall, as provided in section ten hereof, repay to the licensee
any funds deposited by said licensee.
SEC. 13. That, during the present war, in addition to the facts required by sections forty-one
hundred and ninety-seven, forty-one hundred and ninety-eight, and forty-two hundred of the
Revised Statutes, as amended by the Act of June fifteenth, nineteen hundred and seven- teen,
to be set out in the master's and shipper's mani- fests before clearance will be issued to
vessels bound to foreign ports, the master or person in charge of any ves- sel, before
departure of such vessel from port, shall de- liver to the collector of customs of the district
wherein such vessel is located a statement duly verified by oath that the cargo is not shipped
or to be delivered in viola- tion of this Act, and the owners, shippers, or consignors of the
cargo of such vessels shall in like manner deliver to the collector like statement under oath
as to the cargo or the parts thereof laden or shipped by them, respectively, which statement
shall contain also the names and ad- dresses of the actual consignees of the cargo, or if the
shipment is made to a bank or other broker, factor, or agent, the names and addresses of the
360
persons who are the actual consignees on whose account the shipment is made. The master
or person in control of the vessel shall on reaching port of destination of any of the cargo
deliver a copy of the manifest and of the said master's, owner's, shipper's, or consignor's
statement to the Amer- ican consular officer of the district in which the cargo is unladen.
SEC. 14. That, during the present war, whenever there is reasonable cause to believe that
the manifest or the additional statements under oath required by the preced- ing section are
false or that any vessel, domestic or for- eign, is about to carry out of the United States any
property to or for the account or benefit of an enemy, or ally of enemy, or any property or
person whose export, taking out, or transport will be in violation of law, the collector of
customs for the district in which such vessel is located is hereby authorized and empowered,
subject to review by the President to refuse clearance to any such vessel, domestic or
foreign, for which clearance is re- quired by law, and by formal notice served upon the
owners, master, or person or persons in command or charge of any domestic vessel for
which clearance is not required by law, to forbid the departure of such vessel from the port,
and it shall thereupon be unlawful for such vessel to depart.
The collector of customs shall, during the present war, in each case report to the President
the amount of gold or silver coin or bullion or other moneys of the United States contained
in any cargo intended for export. Such report shall include the names and addresses of the
con- signors and consignees, together with any facts known to the collector with reference
to such shipment and par- ticularly those which may indicate that such gold or sil- ver coin
or bullion or moneys of the United States may be intended for delivery or may be delivered,
directly or indirectly, to an enemy or an ally of enemy.
SEC. 15. That the sum of $450,000 is hereby appropri- ated, out of any money in the
Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to be used in the dis- cretion of
the President for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act during the fiscal year
ending June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and eighteen, and for the payment of salaries of all
persons employed under this Act, together with the necessary expenses for trans- portation,
subsistence, rental of quarters in the District of Columbia, books of reference, periodicals,
stationery, typewriters and exchanges thereof, miscellaneous sup- plies, printing to be done
at the Government Printing Office, and all other necessary expenses not included in the
foregoing.
SEC. 16. That whoever shall willfully violate any of the provisions of this Act or of any
license, rule, or regulation issued thereunder, and whoever shall willfully violate, neglect, or
refuse to comply with any order of the President issued in compliance with the provisions of
this Act, shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $10,000, or, if a natural person,
imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both; and the officer, director, or agent of any
corporation who knowingly participates in such violation shall be punished by a like fine,
imprisonment, or both, and any property, funds, securities, papers, or other articles or
documents, or any vessel, together with her tackle, apparel, furniture, and equipment,
concerned in such violation shall be forfeited to the United States.
SEC. 17. That the district courts of the United States are hereby given jurisdiction to make
and enter all such rules as to notice and otherwise, and all such orders and decrees, and to
issue such process as may be necessary and proper in the premises to enforce the provisions
of this Act, with a right of appeal from the final order or decree of such court as provided in
sections one hundred and twenty-eight and two hundred and thirty-eight of the Act of March
361
third, nineteen hundred and eleven, en- titled "An Act to codify, revise, and amend the laws
relating to the judiciary."
SEC. 18. That the several courts of first instance in the Philippine Islands and the district
court of the Canal Zone shall have jurisdiction of offenses under this Act committed within
their respective districts, and concur- rent jurisdiction with the district courts of the United
States of offenses under this Act committed upon the high seas and of conspiracies to
commit such offenses as defined by section thirty-seven of the Act entitled "An Act to
codify, revise, and amend the penal laws of the United States," approved March fourth,
nineteen hun- dred and nine, and the provisions of such section for the purpose of this Act
are hereby extended to the Philip- pine Islands and to the Canal Zone.
SEC. 19. That ten days after the approval of this Act and until the end of the war, it shall be
unlawful for any person, firm, corporation, or association, to print, pub- lish, or circulate, or
cause to be printed, published, or circulated in any foreign language, any news item, editorial
or other printed matter, respecting the Govern- ment of the United States, or of any
nation engaged in the present war, its policies, international relations, the state or conduct of
the war, or any matter relating thereto: Provided, That this section shall not apply to any
print, newspaper, or publication where the publisher or dis- tributor thereof, on or before
offering the same for mail- ing, or in any manner distributing it to the public, has filed with
the postmaster at the place of publication, in the form of an affidavit, a true and complete
translation of the entire article containing such matter proposed to be published in such
print, newspaper, or publication, and has caused to be printed, in plain type in the English
language, at the head of each such item, editorial, or other matter, on each copy of such
print, newspaper, or publication,
the words "True translation filed with the post
master at on (naming the post office
where the translation was filed, and the date of filing
thereof) as required by the Act of (here giving the
date of this Act).
Any print, newspaper, or publication in any foreign
language which does not conform to the provisions of
this section is hereby declared to be nonmailable, and it
shall be unlawful for any person, firm, corporation, or association, to transport, carry, or
otherwise publish or distribute the same, or to transport, carry or otherwise publish or
distribute any matter which is made non- mailable by the provisions of the Act relating to
espio- nage, approved June fifteenth, nineteen hundred and seventeen: Provided further,
That upon evidence satisfac- tory to him that any print, newspaper, or publication, printed in
a foreign language may be printed, published, and distributed free from the foregoing
restrictions and conditions without detriment to the United States in the conduct of the
present war, the President may cause to be issued to the printers or publishers of such print,
newspaper, or publication, a permit to print, publish, and circulate the issue or issues of their
print, newspaper, or publication, free from such restrictions and requirements, such permits
to be subject to revocation at his discretion. and the Postmaster General shall cause copies
of all such permits and revocations of permits to be furnished to the postmaster of the post
office serving the place from which the print, newspaper, or publication, granted the permit
is to emanate. All matter printed published and dis- tributed under permits shall bear at the
head thereof in plain type in the English language, the words, "Pub- lished and distributed
362
under permit anthorized by the Act of (here giving date of this Act), on file at the post office
of (giving name of office)."
Any person who shall make an affidavit containing any false statement in connection with
the translation provided for in this section shall be guilty of the crime of perjury and subject
to the punishment provided there- for by section one hundred and twenty-five of the Act of
March fourth, nineteen hundred and nine, entitled "An Act to codify, revise, and amend the
penal laws of the United States," and any person, firm, corporation, or association, violating
any other requirement of this section shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of
not more than $500, or by imprisonment of not more than one year, or, in the discretion of
the court, may be both fined and imprisoned.
Now To The Bush Family
George Walker, GW's great-grandfather, set up the takeover of the Hamburg-America Line, a
cover for I.G. Farben's Nazi espionage unit in the United States. In Germany, I.G. Farben was
most famous for putting the gas in gas chambers; it was the producer of Zyklon B and other
gasses used on victims of the Holocaust. The Bush family was not unaware of the nature of their
investment partners. They hired Allen Dulles, the future head of the CIA, to hide the funds they
were making from Nazi investments and the funds they were sending to Nazi Germany, rather
than divest. It was only in 1942, when the government seized Union Banking Company assets
under the Trading With The Enemy Act, that George Walker and Prescott Bush stopped
George W. Bush – George HW Bush – Prescott S. Bush
pumping money into
Hitler's regime. Prescott Bush, the president's grandfather. According to classified documents
from Dutch intelligence and US government archives, President George W. Bush's grandfather,
Prescott Bush made considerable profits off Auschwitz slave labor. In fact, President Bush himself
is an heir to these profits from the holocaust which were placed in a blind trust in 1980 by his
father, former president George Herbert Walker Bush. On the 20th of October, the government
commenced action against the company under the trading with the enemy act. After the seizures
in late 1942 of five U.S. enterprises he managed on behalf of Nazi industrialist Fritz Thyssen
failed to divest himself of more than a dozen "enemy national" relationships that continued until
as late as 1951, newly-discovered U.S. government documents reveal. In 1952, Prescott Bush was
elected to the U.S. Senate, with no press accounts about his well-concealed Nazi past.
George Herbert Walker Bush, the presidents father. Bush, as director of the CIA, had funneled
enormous amounts of cash to drug runners including Manuel Noriega and helped in the
destabilization of Argentina. Bush utilized his own connections to help fund drug runners from
Laos to Panama. Most shocking was the so-called "cocaine coup" in Bolivia in June 1980,
363
masterminded by fugitive Nazi Klaus Barbie, "The Butcher Of Lyons."
Nazi Klaus Barbie
Barbie, who had been previously secreted in Latin America by the CIA, began working closely
with the Argentines and used drug money to finance a neo-Nazi cabal, one that succeeded in
overthrowing the government. The troops swept through the capital wearing Nazi armbands,
according to former DEA agent Mike Levine. George H.W. Bush later facilitated the Iran-contra
affair, employing many of the same methods: secretly selling Central American cocaine in
America and weapons to Iran while using the profits to fund the contras and to overthrow
democratically elected socialists in Central America. As the head of the CIA and later as Vice
President, toppled democratically elected regimes in South and Central America and began
propping up a dictator by the name of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Although forbidden by congress
to do so, he continued to sell chemical and biological weapons to Saddam even after he used them
on villages of innocent civilians. A decade later The United States had to go to war against him
and the Bush family again, made millions from it.
Jonathan J. Bush, the Presidents uncle. Jonathan Bush's "Pioneer Profile" in "George W. Bush's
$100,000 Club" cites him as the "head" of the Riggs Investment Management Co.; "Bush’s uncle
Jonathan ... founded its subsidiary, J. Bush & Co., of which he is chair. He also is an ex-chair of
the New York Republican State Finance Committee. Bush credits the investors sent his way by
this banker uncle as a key to his 'success' in the Texas oil industry in the early ‘80s."
Jonathan J. Bush, is a top executive at Riggs Bank, which this week agreed to pay a record $25
million in civil fines for violations of law intended to thwart money laundering. Jonathan Bush,
who is a major fundraiser for his nephew, was appointed in 2000 to run Riggs Investment
Management Co. His association with Riggs began when he headed J. Bush & Co., a New Haven,
Conn., company he created in 1970 and built to offer advice on money management.
According to the 5/14/04 New York Times, Federal regulators fined the Riggs National
Corporation, the parent company of Riggs Bank, $25 million yesterday for "failing to report
suspicious activity, the largest penalty ever assessed against a domestic bank in connection with
money laundering. The fine stems from Riggs's failure over at least the last two years to actively
monitor suspect financial transfers through Saudi Arabian accounts held by the bank." The
5/14/04 Wall Street Journal reported that of particular concern, Riggs failed to monitor "tens of
millions of dollars in cash withdrawals from accounts related to the Saudi Arabian embassy,"
including "suspicious incidents involving dozens of sequentially numbered cashier's checks and
international drafts written by Saudi officials, including Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin
Sultan." According to the 4/18/04 Washington Post, Saudi Prince Bandar's wife, Princess Haifa
al-Faisal, "may have used a Riggs account to donate money to a charity that then gave some of it
to the Sept. 11 terrorists."
According to the nonprofit Texans for Public Justice, Jonathan Bush is the President and CEO of
Riggs Investment Management - a major arm of Riggs Bank. He is also the uncle of President
George W. Bush. The President "credits the investors sent his way by this banker uncle as a key
to his 'success' in the Texas oil industry in the early '80s." According to Public Citizen, the uncle
Jonathan was a Bush Pioneer, having raised more than $100,000 for his nephew in 2000.
364
Neil Bush, the president's brother. Central player of the 1980'ssavings and loan scandal, he ran a
savings and loan into the ground while shoveling millions of its taxpayer-backed dollars into the
pockets of two deadbeat partners. Neil served as a director of Silverado Banking, Savings and
Loan in Denver, Colorado, from 1985 until 1988. During that time, the now-dead thrift made
over $200 million in loans to Neil's two partners in JNB Exploration, Neil's abysmally
unsuccessful oil company. Federal regulators determined that, while Silverado was pumping
loans to Neil's two associates, Neil was completely dependent on the two men for his income. The
failure of Silverado -- its closure delayed until after the 1988 election -- cost taxpayers about $1
billion. After Silverado failed, Neil started a new oil company, Apex Energy. This time, his money
came from a $2.35 million loan through a Small Business Administration program. When news of
this reached the press in March 1991, the SBA discovered that the companies through which the
loan was approved were technically insolvent, and it gave them up to thirty months to "selfliquidate."
This meant that Apex would have to repay its SBA-guaranteed loans. Neil took this as
his cue to move on, and he left Apex -- and its debts -- for others to worry about. update: Neil
Bush made $171,370 in one day. The fact that he was a former consultant to the company whose
stock he dumped is just a coincidence.
Marvin Bush, the president's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing
electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines,
according to public records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-
American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family. The security company, formerly named
Securacom and now named Stratesec, is in Sterling, Va.. Its CEO, Barry McDaniel, said the
company had a ``completion contract" to handle some of the security at the World Trade Center
``up to the day the buildings fell down." The suite in which Marvin Bush was annually re-elected,
according to public records, is located in the Watergate in space leased to the Saudi government.
The company now holds shareholder meetings in space leased by the Kuwaiti government there.
Jeb Bush, the president's brother. After graduating from The University of Texas, Jeb Bush
served a short apprenticeship at the Venezuelan branch of Texas Commerce Bank in Caracas
before settling in Miami, in 1980, to work on his father's unsuccessful primary bid against
Ronald Reagan. Shortly after arriving in Miami, Jeb was hired by Cuban-American developer
Armando Codina to work at his Miami development company as an agent leasing office space. A
couple of years later, Jeb and Codina became business partners, and in 1985 they purchased an
office building in a deal partly financed by a savings and loan that later failed. The $4.56 million
loan, from Broward Federal Savings in Sunrise, Florida, was granted in such a way that neither
Codina's nor Bush's name appeared on the loan papers as the borrowers. A third man, J. Edward
Houston, borrowed the $4.56 million from Broward and then re-lent it to the Bush partnership.
When federal regulators closed Broward Savings in 1988, they found the loan, which had been
secured by the Bush partnership, in default. As Jeb's father was finishing his second term as vicepresident
and running for the presidency, federal regulators had two options: to get Jeb Bush and
his partner to repay the loan, or to foreclose on their office building. But regulators came up with
a third solution. After reappraising the building, regulators decided it wasn't worth as much as
was owed for it. The regulators reduced the amount owed by Bush and his partner from $4.56
million to just $500,000. The pair paid that amount and were allowed to keep their office
building. Taxpayers picked up the tab for the unpaid $4 million.
He also rigged an election that you may have heard about. Thousands of eligible voters were
disallowed the right to vote in predominantly democratic regions. Between May 1999 and
Election Day 2000, two Florida secretaries of state - Sandra Mortham and Katherine Harris,
both protégées of Governor Jeb Bush- ordered 57,700 "ex-felons," who are prohibited from
voting by state law, to be removed from voter rolls. (In the thirty-five states where former felons
can vote, roughly 90 percent vote Democratic.) A company now owned by ChoicePoint of Atlanta,
was paid $4.3 million for its work, replacing a firm that charged $5,700 per year for the same
365
service.Two of these "scrub lists," as officials called them, were distributed to counties in the
months before the election with orders to remove the voters named. Together the lists comprised
nearly 1 percent of Florida?s electorate and nearly 3 percent of its African-American voters.
Neither DBT nor the state conducted any further research to verify the matches. DBT, which
frequently is hired by the F.B.I. to conduct manhunts, originally proposed using address histories
and financial records to confirm the names, but the state declined the cross-checks. (11)
George W. Bush, second appointed president of the United States.
1979-83: Fifty Bush family investors and friends, led by uncle Jonathan, a New York Republican
Party official and an investment manager, fork over $4.7 million to set up young Bush in a
company called Arbusto. It's a flop, and in 1982 gets a new name: Bush Exploration.
1984: Spectrum 7 Corporation, an Ohio oil exploration outfit owned by Dubya's Yalie pal
William DeWitt Jr., buys out Bush Exploration, setting up young Bush as CEO at $75,000 a year
and giving him 1.1 million shares of the firm's stock. Another flop. The company's fortunes soon
sink, with $400,000 in losses and a debt of $3 million.
1986: In the nick of time, Bush and partners merge the failing Spectrum with Harken Oil, a
Dallas exploration company, with a $2 million stock purchase. Bush puts up about $500,000 and
gets a $120,000 annual consulting fee along with $131,250 in stock options. Harken is a small
outfit, looking for oil opportunities within the U.S. Then out of the blue comes Harvard
Management Corporation, an investment adviser for Harvard University's endowment portfolio.
It pumps millions into the venture.
1990: Although Harken has no international expertise, it gets the attention of the Bahrain
National Oil Company, which unexpectedly appears on the scene and bypasses big oil's Amoco
and Chevron to sign a production agreement with the little Texas concern. The contract grants
Harken exclusive rights to what seems to be a promising offshore area squeezed between two
productive tracts owned by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The Wall Street Journal speculates Bahrain
was trying to cozy up to Daddy Bush, who was plotting an assault on Iraq after Saddam Hussein
seized Kuwait.
Bass Enterprises Production Company finances the Bahrain drilling with $25 million, and
Harvard Management raises its investment. A couple of members of the Fort Worth Bass family
have places on Team 100, an elite business group contributing to the Republican National
Committee.
In June, Harken drills two dry holes in Bahrain. The future looks bleak. Dubya dumps two-thirds
of his Harken holdings (212,140 shares), for $848,560. He uses some of this money to buy into the
Texas Rangers baseball club. This is a lot of stock to dump on the market all at once, and brokers
say it was purchased by an unnamed institutional investor.
That August, Harken posts a loss of $23 million.
January 1991: Daddy Bush attacks Iraq.
February 1991: Dubya, as the official in charge at Harken, reports his big stock sale to the SEC—
eight months late.
April 1991: The SEC begins an investigation into Harken dealings. Chairman Richard Breeden,
who had been appointed by the senior Bush and served him as an economic policy adviser, hails
from Baker & Botts, a big Texas oil law firm where he was a partner. Inside the SEC, James Doty,
general counsel and the official in charge of any litigation that might come out of the Harken
investigation, is another alumnus of Baker & Botts. And as a private attorney, before joining the
government, Doty represented the younger Bush in matters related to Dubya's ownership of the
Rangers.
1993: The SEC ends its Harken investigation following perfunctory interviews.
The good people of Baker & Botts continued looking out for Shrub. Since 1993, Breeden, Doty,
and other lawyers there have given him $182,050 for his various political campaigns, making the
366
firm one of his biggest supporters.(12)
Upon appointment as president, Bush appoints 6 Iran-contra defendants to his staff, (13) fills the
upper levels of the White house and pentagon with senior members of the PNAC (14) including
his speech writer, chief advisor, secretary of defense, and vice president. Uses the terrorist attacks
of 9-11 (16) to illegally invade and occupy Iraq under the false pretense of imminent threat (15)
and reaps billions for Cheney's Halliburton, Rumsfeld's Bechtel, and his own family's Carlyle
group.
Karl Rove's grandfather was Karl Heinz Roverer, the Gauleiter of Oldenburg. Roverer was
Reich-Statthalter---Nazi State Party Chairman---for his region. He was also a partner and senior
engineer in the Roverer Sud-Deutche Ingenieurburo A. G. engineering firm, which built the
Birkenau death camp.
Still, that's ancient history. Surely bush wouldn't be repeating the actions of fascist dictators. Or
would he?
SECRETS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE
On the night of November 22, 1910, a group of newspaper reporters stood disconsolately in the
railway station at Hoboken, New Jersey. They had just watched a delegation of the nation’s
leading financiers leave the station on a secret mission. It would be years before they discovered
what that mission was, and even then they would not understand that the history of the United
States underwent a drastic change after that night in Hoboken.
The delegation had left in a sealed railway car, with blinds drawn, for an undisclosed destination.
They were led by Senator Nelson Aldrich, head of the National Monetary Commission. President
Theodore Roosevelt had signed into law the bill creating the National Monetary Commission in
1908, after the tragic Panic of 1907 had resulted in a public outcry that the nation’s monetary
system be stabilized. Aldrich had led the members of the Commission on a two-year tour of
Europe, spending some three hundred thousand dollars of public money. He had not yet made a
report on the results of this trip, nor had he offered any plan for banking reform.
Accompanying Senator Aldrich at the Hoboken station were his private secretary, Shelton; A.
Piatt Andrew, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, and Special Assistant of the National Monetary
Commission; Frank Vanderlip, president of the National City Bank of New York, Henry P.
Davison, senior partner of J.P. Morgan Company, and generally regarded as Morgan’s personal
emissary; and Charles D. Norton, president of the Morgan-dominated First National Bank of
New York. Joining the group just before the train left the station were Benjamin Strong, also
known as a lieutenant of J.P. Morgan; and Paul Warburg, a recent immigrant from Germany
who had joined the banking house of Kuhn, Loeb and Company, New York as a partner earning
five hundred thousand dollars a year.
Six years later, a financial writer named Bertie Charles Forbes (who later founded the Forbes
Magazine; the present editor, Malcom Forbes, is his son), wrote:
"Picture a party of the nation’s greatest bankers stealing out of New York on a private railroad
car under cover of darkness, stealthily hieing hundred of miles South, embarking on a mysterious
launch, sneaking onto an island deserted by all but a few servants, living there a full week under
such rigid secrecy that the names of not one of them was once mentioned lest the servants learn
367
the identity and disclose to the world this strangest, most secret expedition in the history of
American finance. I am not romancing; I am giving to the world, for the first time, the real story
of how the famous Aldrich currency report, the foundation of our new currency system, was
written . . . . The utmost secrecy was enjoined upon all. The public must not glean a hint of what
was to be done. Senator Aldrich notified each one to go quietly into a private car of which the
railroad had received orders to draw up on an unfrequented platform. Off the party set. New
York’s ubiquitous reporters had been foiled . . . Nelson (Aldrich) had confided to Henry, Frank,
Paul and Piatt that he was to keep them locked up at Jekyll Island, out of the rest of the world,
until they had evolved and compiled a scientific currency system for the United States, the real
birth of the present Federal Reserve System, the plan done on Jekyll Island in the conference
with
Paul, Frank and Henry . . . . Warburg is the link that binds the Aldrich system and the present
system together. He more than any one man has made the system possible as a working reality."2
The official biography of Senator Nelson Aldrich states:
"In the autumn of 1910, six men went out to shoot ducks, Aldrich, his secretary Shelton,
Andrews, Davison, Vanderlip and Warburg. Reporters were waiting at the Brunswick (Georgia)
station. Mr. Davison went out and talked to them. The reporters dispersed and the secret of the
strange journey was not divulged. Mr. Aldrich asked him how he had managed it and he did not
volunteer the information."3
Davison had an excellent reputation as the person who could conciliate warring factions, a role he
had performed for J.P. Morgan during the settling of the Money Panic of 1907. Another Morgan
partner, T.W. Lamont, says:
"Henry P. Davison served as arbitrator of the Jekyll Island expedition."4
Aldrich’s private car, which had left Hoboken station with its shades drawn, had taken the
financiers to Jekyll Island, Georgia. Some years earlier, a very exclusive group of millionaires, led
by J.P. Morgan, had purchased the island as a winter retreat. They called themselves the Jekyll
Island Hunt Club, and, at first, the island was used only for hunting expeditions, until the
millionaires realized that its pleasant climate offered a warm retreat from the rigors of winters in
New York, and began to build splendid mansions, which they called "cottages", for their families’
winter vacations. The club building itself, being quite isolated, was sometimes in demand for stag
parties and other pursuits unrelated to hunting. On such occasions, the club members who were
not invited to these specific outings were asked not to appear there for a certain number of days.
Before Nelson Aldrich’s party had left New York, the club’s members had been notified that the
club would be occupied for the next two weeks.
The Jekyll Island Club was chosen as the place to draft the plan for control of the money and
credit of the people of the United States, not only because of its isolation, but also because it was
368
the private preserve of the people who were drafting the plan. The New York Times later noted,
on May 3, 1931, in commenting on the death of George F. Baker, one of J.P. Morgan’s closest
associates, that "Jekyll Island Club has lost one of its most distinguished members. One-sixth of
the total wealth of the world was represented by the members of the Jekyll Island Club."
Membership was by inheritance only.
The Aldrich group had no interest in hunting. Jekyll Island was chosen for the site of the
preparation of the central bank because it offered complete privacy, and because there was not a
journalist within fifty miles. Such was the need for secrecy that the members of the party agreed,
before arriving at Jekyll Island, that no last names would be used at any time during their two
week stay. The group later referred to themselves as the First Name Club, as the last names of
Warburg, Strong, Vanderlip and the others were prohibited during their stay. The customary
attendants had been given two week vacations from the club, and new servants brought in from
the mainland for this occasion who did not know the names of any of those present. Even if they
had been interrogated after the Aldrich party went back to New York, they could not have given
the names. This arrangement proved to be so satisfactory that the members, limited to those who
had actually been present at Jekyll Island, later had a number of informal get-togethers in New
York.
Why all this secrecy? Why this thousand mile trip in a closed railway car to a remote hunting
club? Ostensibly, it was to carry out a program of public service, to prepare banking reform
which would be a boon to the people of the United States, which had been ordered by the
National Monetary Commission. The participants were no strangers to public benefactions.
Usually, their names were inscribed on brass plaques, or on the exteriors of buildings which they
had donated. This was not the procedure which they followed at Jekyll Island. No brass plaque
was ever erected to mark the selfless actions of those who met at their private hunt club in 1910 to
improve the lot of every citizen of the United States.
In fact, no benefaction took place at Jekyll Island. The Aldrich group journeyed there in private
to write the banking and currency legislation which the National Monetary Commission had
been ordered to prepare in public. At stake was the future control of the money and credit of the
United States. If any genuine monetary reform had been prepared and presented to Congress, it
would have ended the power of the elitist one world money creators. Jekyll Island ensured that a
central bank would be established in the United States which would give these bankers
everything they had always wanted.
As the most technically proficient of those present, Paul Warburg was charged with doing most of
the drafting of the plan. His work would then be discussed and gone over by the rest of the group.
Senator Nelson Aldrich was there to see that the completed plan would come out in a form which
he could get passed by Congress, and the other bankers were there to include whatever details
would be needed to be certain that they got everything they wanted, in a finished draft composed
during a onetime stay. After they returned to New York, there could be no second get together to
rework their plan. They could not hope to obtain such secrecy for their work on a second journey.
The Jekyll Island group remained at the club for nine days, working furiously to complete their
task. Despite the common interests of those present, the work did not proceed without friction.
Senator Aldrich, always a domineering person, considered himself the chosen leader of the group,
and could not help ordering everyone else about. Aldrich also felt somewhat out of place as the
only member who was not a professional banker. He had had substantial banking interests
throughout his career, but only as a person who profited from his ownership of bank stock. He
369
knew little about the technical aspects of financial operations. His opposite number, Paul
Warburg, believed that every question raised by the group demanded, not merely an answer, but
a lecture. He rarely lost an opportunity to give the members a long discourse designed to impress
them with the extent of his knowledge of banking. This was resented by the others, and often
drew barbed remarks from Aldrich. The natural diplomacy of Henry P. Davison proved to be the
catalyst which kept them at their work. Warburg’s thick alien accent grated on them, and
constantly reminded them that they had to accept his presence if a central bank plan was to be
devised which would guarantee them their future pro- fits. Warburg made little effort to smooth
over their prejudices, and contested them on every possible occasion on technical banking
questions, which he considered his private preserve.
"In all conspiracies there must be great secrecy."5
The "monetary reform" plan prepared at Jekyll Island was to be presented to Congress as the
completed work of the National Monetary Commission. It was imperative that the real authors of
the bill remain hidden. So great was popular resentment against bankers since the Panic of 1907
that no Congressman would dare to vote for a bill bearing the Wall Street taint, no matter who
had contributed to his campaign expenses. The Jekyll Island plan was a central bank plan, and in
this country there was a long tradition of struggle against inflicting a central bank on the
American people. It had begun with Thomas Jefferson’s fight against Alexander Hamilton’s
scheme for the First Bank of the United States, backed by James Rothschild. It had continued
with President Andrew Jackson’s successful war against Alexander Hamilton’s scheme for the
Second Bank of the United States, in which Nicholas Biddle was acting as the agent for James
Rothschild of Paris. The result of that struggle was the creation of the Independent Sub-Treasury
System, which supposedly had served to keep the funds of the United States out of the hands of
the financiers. A study of the panics of 1873, 1893, and 1907 indicates that these panics were the
result of the international bankers’ operations in London. The public was demanding in 1908
that Congress enact legislation to prevent the recurrence of artificially induced money panics.
Such monetary reform now seemed inevitable. It was to head off and control such reform that the
National Monetary Commission had been set up with Nelson Aldrich at its head, since he was
majority leader of the Senate.
The main problem, as Paul Warburg informed his colleagues, was to avoid the name "Central
Bank". For that reason, he had decided upon the designation of "Federal Reserve System". This
would deceive the people into thinking it was not a central bank. However, the Jekyll Island plan
would be a central bank plan, fulfilling the main functions of a central bank; it would be owned
by private individuals who would profit from ownership of shares. As a bank of issue, it would
control the nation’s money and credit.
In the chapter on Jekyll Island in his biography of Aldrich, Stephenson writes of the conference:
"How was the Reserve Bank to be controlled? It must be controlled by Congress. The
government
was to be represented in the board of directors, it was to have full knowledge of all the Bank’s,
affairs, but a majority of the directors were to be chosen, directly or indirectly, by the banks of
the association."6
Thus the proposed Federal Reserve Bank was to be "controlled by Congress" and answerable to
370
the government, but the majority of the directors were to be chosen, "directly or indirectly" by
the banks of the association. In the final refinement of Warburg’s plan, the Federal Reserve
Board of Governors would be appointed by the President of the United States, but the real work
of the Board would be controlled by a Federal Advisory Council, meeting with the Governors.
The Council would be chosen by the directors of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks, and would
remain unknown to the public.
The next consideration was to conceal the fact that the proposed "Federal Reserve System"
would be dominated by the masters of the New York money market. The Congressmen from the
South and the West could not survive if they voted for a Wall Street plan. Farmers and small
businessmen in those areas had suffered most from the money panics. There had been great
popular resentment against the Eastern bankers, which during the nineteenth century became a
political movement known as "populism". The private papers of Nicholas Biddle, not released
until more than a century after his death, show that quite early on the Eastern bankers were fully
aware of the widespread public opposition to them.
Paul Warburg advanced at Jekyll Island the primary deception which would prevent the citizens
from recognizing that his plan set up a central bank. This was the regional reserve system. He
proposed a system of four (later twelve) branch reserve banks located in different sections of the
country. Few people outside the banking world would realize that the existing concentration of
the nation’s money and credit structure in New York made the proposal of a regional reserve
system a delusion.
Another proposal advanced by Paul Warburg at Jekyll Island was the manner of selection of
administrators for the proposed regional reserve system. Senator Nelson Aldrich had insisted that
the officials should be appointive, not elected, and that Congress should have no role in their
selection. His Capitol Hill experience had taught him that congressional opinion would often be
inimical to the Wall Street interests, as Congressmen from the West and South might wish to
demonstrate to their constituents that they were protecting them against the Eastern bankers.
Warburg responded that the administrators of the proposed central banks should be subject to
executive approval by the President. This patent removal of the system from Congressional
control meant that the Federal Reserve proposal was unconstitutional from its inception, because
the Federal Reserve System was to be a bank of issue. Article 1, Sec. 8, Par. 5 of the Constitution
expressly charges Congress with "the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof.".
Warburg’s plan would deprive Congress of its sovereignty, and the systems of checks and
balances of power set up by Thomas Jefferson in the Constitution would now be destroyed.
Administrators of the proposed system would control the nation’s money and credit, and would
themselves be approved by the executive department of the government. The judicial department
(the Supreme Court, etc.) was already virtually controlled by the executive department through
presidential appointment to the bench.
Paul Warburg later wrote a massive exposition of his plan, The Federal Reserve System, Its
Origin and Growth7 of some 1750 pages, but the name "Jekyll Island" appears nowhere in this
text. He does state (Vol. 1, p. 58):
"But then the conference closed, after a week of earnest deliberation, the rough draft of what
later became the Aldrich Bill had been agreed upon, and a plan had been outlined which
provided for a ‘National Reserve Association,’ meaning a central reserve organization with an
elastic note issue based on gold and commercial paper."
371
On page 60, Warburg writes, "The results of the conference were entirely confidential. Even the
fact there had been a meeting was not permitted to become public." He adds in a footnote,
"Though eighteen [sic] years have since gone by, I do not feel free to give a description of this
most interesting conference concerning which Senator Aldrich pledged all participants to
secrecy."
B.C. Forbes’ revelation8 of the secret expedition to Jekyll Island, had had surprisingly little
impact. It did not appear in print until two years after the Federal Reserve Act had been passed
by Congress, hence it was never read during the period when it could have had an effect, that is,
during the Congressional debate on the bill. Forbes’ story was also dismissed, by those "in the
know," as preposterous, and a mere invention. Stephenson mentions this on page 484 of his book
about Aldrich.9
"This curious episode of Jekyll Island has been generally regarded as a myth. B.C. Forbes got
some information from one of the reporters. It told in vague outline the Jekyll Island story, but
made no impression and was generally regarded as a mere yarn."
The coverup of the Jekyll Island conference proceeded along two lines, both of which were
successful. The first, as Stephenson mentions, was to dismiss the entire story as a romantic
concoction which never actually took place. Although there were brief references to Jekyll Island
in later books concerning the Federal Reserve System, these also attracted little public attention.
As we have noted, Warburg’s massive and supposedly definite work on the Federal Reserve
System does not mention Jekyll Island at all, although he does admit that a conference took place.
In none of his voluminous speeches or writings do the words "Jekyll Island" appear, with a single
notable exception. He agreed to Professor Stephenson’s request that he prepare a brief statement
for the Aldrich biography. This appears on page 485 as part of "The Warburg Memorandum". In
this excerpt, Warburg writes, "The matter of a uniform discount rate was discussed and settled at
Jekyll Island."
Another member of the "First Name Club" was less reticent. Frank Vanderlip later published a
few brief references to the conference. In the Saturday Evening Post, February 9, 1935, p. 25,
Vanderlip wrote: "Despite my views about the value to society of greater publicity for the affairs
of corporations,
there was an occasion near the close of 1910, when I was as secretive, indeed, as furtive, as any
conspirator. . . . Since it would have been fatal to Senator Aldrich’s plan to have it known that he
was calling on anybody from Wall Street to help him in preparing his bill, precautions were taken
that would have delighted the heart of James Stillman (a colorful and secretive banker who was
President of the National City Bank during the Spanish-American War, and who was thought to
have been involved in getting us into that war) . . . I do not feel it is any exaggeration to speak of
our secret expedition to Jekyll Island as the occasion of the actual conception of what eventually
became the Federal Reserve System."
In a Travel feature in The Washington Post, March 27, 1983, "Follow The Rich to Jekyll Island",
Roy Hoopes writes:
"In 1910, when Aldrich and four financial experts wanted a place to meet in secret to reform the
372
country’s banking system, they faked a hunting trip to Jekyll and for 10 days holed up in the
Clubhouse, where they made plans for what eventually would become the Federal Reserve
Bank." Vanderlip later wrote in his autobiography, From Farmboy to Financier:10
"Our secret expedition to Jekyll Island was the occasion of the actual conception of what
eventually became the Federal Reserve System. The essential points of the Aldrich Plan were
all contained in the Federal Reserve Act as it was passed."
Professor E.R.A. Seligman, a member of the international banking family of J. & W. Seligman,
and head of the Department of Economics at Columbia University, wrote in an essay published
by the Academy of Political Science, Proceedings, v. 4, No. 4, p. 387-90:
"It is known to a very few how great is the indebtedness of the United States to Mr. Warburg. For
it may be said without fear of contradiction that in its fundamental features the Federal Reserve
Act is the work of Mr. Warburg more than any other man in the country. The existence of a
Federal Reserve Board creates, in everything but in name, a real central bank. In the two
fundamentals of command of reserves and of a discount policy, the Federal Reserve Act has
frankly accepted the principle of the Aldrich Bill, and these principles, as has been stated, were
the creation of Mr. Warburg and Mr. Warburg alone. It must not be forgotten that Mr. Warburg
had a practical object in view. In formulating his plans and in advancing in them slightly varying
suggestions from time to time, it was incumbent on him to remember that the education of the
country must be gradual and that a large part of the task was to break down prejudices and
remove suspicion. His plans therefore contained all sorts of elaborate suggestions designed to
guard the public against fancied dangers and to persuade the country that the general scheme
was at all practicable. It was the hope of Mr. Warburg that with the lapse of time it might be
possible to eliminate from the law a few clauses which were inserted largely at his suggestion for
educational purposes."
Now that the public debt of the United States has passed a trillion dollars, we may indeed admit
"how great is the indebtedness of the United States to Mr. Warburg." At the time he wrote the
Federal Reserve Act, the public debt was almost nonexistent.
Professor Seligman points out Warburg’s remarkable prescience that the real task of the members
of the Jekyll Island conference was to prepare a banking plan which would gradually "educate
the country" and "break down prejudices and remove suspicion". The campaign to enact the
plan into law succeeded in doing just that. "Finance and the tariff are reserved by Nelson Aldrich
as falling within his sole purview and jurisdiction. Mr. Aldrich is endeavoring to devise, through
the National Monetary Commission, a banking and currency law. A great many hundred
thousand persons are firmly of the opinion that Mr. Aldrich sums up in his personality the
greatest and most sinister menace to the popular welfare of the United States. Ernest Newman
recently said, ‘What the South visits on the Negro in a political way, Aldrich would mete out to
the mudsills of the North, if he could devise a safe and practical way to accomplish it.’"--
Harper’s Weekly, May 7, 1910."
373
The participants in the Jekyll Island conference returned to New York to direct a nationwide
propaganda campaign in favor of the "Aldrich Plan". Three of the leading universities,
Princeton, Harvard, and the University of Chicago, were used as the rallying points for this
propaganda, and national banks had to contribute to a fund of five million dollars to persuade
the American public that this central bank plan should be enacted into law by Congress.
Woodrow Wilson, governor of New Jersey and former president of Princeton University, was
enlisted as a spokesman for the Aldrich Plan. During the Panic of 1907, Wilson had declared, "All
this trouble could be averted if we appointed a committee of six or seven public-spirited men like
J.P. Morgan to handle the affairs of our country."
In his biography of Nelson Aldrich in 1930, Stephenson says:
"A pamphlet was issued January 16, 1911, ‘Suggested Plan for Monetary Legislation’, by Hon.
Nelson Aldrich, based on Jekyll Island conclusions." Stephenson says on page 388, "An
organization for financial progress has been formed. Mr. Warburg introduced a resolution
authorizing the establishment of the Citizens’ League, later the National Citizens League . . .
Professor Laughlin of the University of Chicago was given charge of the League’s propaganda."
It is notable that Stephenson characterizes the work of the National Citizens League as
"propaganda", in line with Seligman’s exposition of Warburg’s work as "the education of the
country" and "to break down prejudices".
Much of the five million dollars of the bankers slush fund was spent under the auspices of the
National Citizens’ League, which was made up of college professors. The two most tireless
propagandists for the Aldrich Plan were Professor O.M. Sprague of Harvard, and J. Laurence
Laughlin of the University of Chicago.
Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr., notes:
"J. Laurence Laughlin, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the National Citizens’ League
since its organization, has returned to his position as professor of political economics in the
University of Chicago. In June, 1911, Professor Laughlin was given a year’s leave from the
university, that he might give all of his time to the campaign of education undertaken by the
League . . . He has worked indefatigably, and it is largely due to his efforts and his persistence
that the campaign enters the final stage with flattering prospects of a successful outcome . . . The
reader knows that the University of Chicago is an institution endowed by John D. Rockefeller,
with nearly fifty million dollars."
In his biography of Nelson Aldrich, Stephenson reveals that the Citizens’ League was also a Jekyll
Island product. In chapter 24 we find that: The Aldrich Plan was represented to Congress as the
result of three years of work, study and travel by members of the National Monetary
Commission, with expenditures of more than three hundred thousand dollars.*
Testifying before the Committee on Rules, December 15, 1911, after the Aldrich plan had been
introduced in Congress, Congressman Lindbergh stated,
"Our financial system is a false one and a huge burden on the people . . . I have alleged that there
374
is a Money Trust. The Aldrich plan is a scheme plainly in the interest of the Trust . . . Why does
the Money Trust press so hard for the Aldrich Plan now, before the people know what the money
trust has been doing?"
Lindbergh continued his speech,
"The Aldrich Plan is the Wall Street Plan. It is a broad challenge to the Government by the
champion of the Money Trust. It means another panic, if necessary, to intimidate the people.
Aldrich, paid by the Government to represent the people, proposes a plan for the trusts instead.
It was by a very clever move that the National Monetary Commission was created. In 1907
nature responded most beautifully and gave this country the most bountiful crop it had ever had.
Other industries were busy too, and from a natural standpoint all the conditions were right for a
most prosperous year. Instead, a panic entailed enormous losses upon us. Wall Street knew the
American people were demanding a remedy against the recurrence of such a ridiculously
unnatural condition. Most Senators and Representatives fell into the Wall Street trap and passed
the Aldrich Vreeland Emergency Currency Bill. But the real purpose was to get a monetary
commission which would frame a proposition for amendments to our currency and banking laws
which would suit the Money Trust. The interests are now busy everywhere educating the people
in favor of the Aldrich Plan. It is reported that a large sum of money has been raised for this
purpose. Wall Street speculation brought on the Panic of 1907. The depositors’ funds were loaned
to gamblers and anybody the Money Trust wanted to favour. Then when the depositors wanted
their money, the banks did not have it. That made the panic."
Edward Vreeland, co-author of the bill, wrote in the August 25, 1910 Independent (which was
owned by Aldrich), "Under the proposed monetary plan of Senator Aldrich, monopolies will
disappear, because they will not be able to make more than four percent interest and monopolies
cannot continue at such a low rate. Also, this will mark the disappearance of the Government
from the banking business."
Vreeland’s fantastic claims were typical of the propaganda flood unleashed to pass the Aldrich
Plan. Monopolies would disappear, the Government would disappear from the banking business.
Pie in the sky.
Nation Magazine, January 19, 1911, noted, "The name of Central Bank is carefully avoided, but
the ‘Federal Reserve Association’, the name given to the proposed central organization, is
endowed with the usual powers and responsibilities of a European Central Bank."
After the National Monetary Commission had returned from Europe, it held no official meetings
for nearly two years. No records or minutes were ever presented showing who had authored the
Aldrich Plan. Since they held no official meetings, the members of the commission could hardly
claim the Plan as their own. The sole tangible result of the Commission’s three hundred thousand
dollar expenditure was a library of thirty massive volumes on European banking. Typical of these
works is a thousand page history of the Reichsbank, the central bank which controlled money
and credit in Germany, and whose principal stockholders, were the Rothschilds and Paul
Warburg’s family banking house of M.M. Warburg Company. The Commission’s records show
that it never functioned as a deliberative body. Indeed, its only "meeting" was the secret
conference held at Jekyll Island, and this conference is not mentioned in any publication of the
Commission. Senator Cummins passed a resolution in Congress ordering the Commission to
375
report on January 8, 1912, and show some constructive results of its three years’ work. In the face
of this challenge, the National Monetary Commission ceased to exist.
With their five million dollars as a war chest, the Aldrich Plan propagandists waged a no-holds
barred war against their opposition. Andrew Frame testified before the House Banking and
Currency Committee of the American Bankers Association. He represented a group of Western
bankers who opposed the Aldrich Plan:
CHAIRMAN CARTER GLASS: "Why didn’t the Western bankers make themselves heard when
the American Bankers Association gave its unqualified and, we are assured, unanimous approval
of the scheme proposed by the National Monetary Commission?"
ANDREW FRAME: "I’m glad you called my attention to that. When that monetary bill was
given to the country, it was but a few days previous to the meeting of the American Bankers
Association in New Orleans in 1911. There was not one banker in a hundred who had read that
bill. We had twelve addresses in favor of it. General Hamby of Austin, Texas, wrote a letter to
President Watts asking for a hearing against the bill. He did not get a very courteous answer. I
refused to vote on it, and a great many other bankers did likewise."
MR. BULKLEY: "Do you mean that no member of the Association could be heard in opposition
to the bill?"
ANDREW FRAME: "They throttled all argument."
MR. KINDRED: "But the report was given out that it was practically unanimous."
ANDREW FRAME: "The bill had already been prepared by Senator Aldrich and presented to
the executive council of the American Bankers Association in May, 1911. As a member of that
council, I received a copy the day before they acted upon it. When the bill came in at New
Orleans, the bankers of the United States had not read it."
MR. KINDRED: "Did the presiding officer simply rule out those who wanted to discuss it
negatively?"
ANDREW FRAME: "They would not allow anyone on the program who was not in favor of the
bill."
CHAIRMAN GLASS: "What significance has the fact that at the next annual meeting of the
American Bankers Association held at Detroit in 1912, the Association did not reiterate its
endorsement of the plan of the National Monetary Commission, known as the Aldrich scheme?"
ANDREW FRAME: "It did not reiterate the endorsement for the simple fact that the backers of
the Aldrich Plan knew that the Association would not endorse it. We were ready for them, but
they did not bring it up." Andrew Frame exposed the collusion which in 1911 procured an
endorsement of the Aldrich Plan from the American Bankers Association but which in 1912 did
not even dare to repeat its endorsement, for fear of an honest and open discussion of the merits of
the plan.
Chairman Glass then called as witness one of the ten most powerful bankers in the United States,
George Blumenthal, partner of the international banking house of Lazard Freres and brother-inlaw
of Eugene Meyer, Jr. Carter Glass effusively welcomed Blumenthal, stating that "Senator
376
O’Gorman of New York was kind enough to suggest your name to us." A year later, O’Gorman
prevented a Senate Committee from asking his master, Paul Warburg, any embarrassing
questions before approving his nomination as the first Governor of the Federal Reserve Board.
George Blumenthal stated, "Since 1893 my firm of Lazard Freres has been foremost in
importations and exportations of gold and has thereby come into contact with everybody who
had anything to do with it."
Congressman Taylor asked, "Have you a statement there as to the part you have had in the
importation of gold into the United States?" Taylor asked this because the Panic of 1893 is known
to economists as a classic example of a money panic caused by gold movements.
"No," replied George Blumenthal, "I have nothing at all on that, because it is not bearing on the
question."
A banker from Philadelphia, Leslie Shaw, dissented with other witnesses at these hearings,
criticizing the much vaunted "decentralization" of the System. He said, "Under the Aldrich Plan
the bankers are to have local associations and district associations, and when you have a local
organization, the centered control is assured. Suppose we have a local association in Indianapolis;
can you not name the three men who will dominate that association? And then can you not name
the one man everywhere else. When you have hooked the banks together, they can have the
biggest influence of anything in this country, with the exception of the newspapers."
To promote the Democratic currency bill, Carter Glass made public the sorry record of the
Republican efforts of Senator Aldrich’s National Monetary Commission. His House Report in
1913 said, "Senator MacVeagh fixes the cost of the National Monetary Commission to May 12,
1911 at $207,130. They have since spent another hundred thousand dollars of the taxpayer’s
money. The work done at such cost cannot be ignored, but, having examined the extensive
literature published by the Commission, the Banking and Currency Committee finds little that
bears upon the present state of the credit market of the United States. We object to the Aldrich
Bill on the following points:
Its entire lack of adequate government or public control of the banking mechanism it sets up.
Its tendency to throw voting control into the hands of the large banks of the system.
The extreme danger of inflation of currency inherent in the system.
The insincerity of the bond-funding plan provided for by the measure, there being a barefaced
pretense that this system was to cost the government nothing.
The dangerous monopolistic aspects of the bill.
Our Committee at the outset of its work was met by a well-defined sentiment in favor of a central
bank which was the manifest outgrowth of the work that had been done by the National
Monetary Commission."
Glass’s denunciation of the Aldrich Bill as a central bank plan ignored the fact that his own
Federal Reserve Act would fulfill all the functions of a central bank. Its stock would be owned by
private stockholders who could use the credit of the Government for their own profit; it would
have control of the nation’s money and credit resources; and it would be a bank of issue which
377
would finance the government by "mobilizing" credit in time of war. In "The Rationale of
Central Banking," Vera C. Smith (Committee for Monetary Research and Education, June,
1981) writes, "The primary definition of a central bank is a banking system in which a single
bank has either a complete or residuary monopoly in the note issue. A central bank is not a
natural product of banking development. It is imposed from outside or comes into being as the
result of Government favors."
Thus a central bank attains its commanding position from its government granted monopoly of
the note issue. This is the key to its power. Also, the act of establishing a central bank has a direct
inflationary impact because of the fractional reserve system, which allows the creation of bookentry
loans and thereby, money, a number of times the actual "money" which the bank has in its
deposits or reserves.
The Aldrich Plan never came to a vote in Congress, because the Republicans lost control of the
House in 1910, and subsequently lost the Senate and the Presidency in 1912.
"Our financial system is a false one and a huge burden on the people . . . This Act establishes the
most gigantic trust on earth."--Congressman Charles Augustus Lindbergh, Sr.
The speeches of Senator LaFollette and Congressman Lindbergh became rallying points of
opposition to the Aldrich Plan in 1912. They also aroused popular feeling against the Money
Trust. Congressman Lindbergh said, on December 15, 1911, "The government prosecutes other
trusts, but supports the money trust. I have been waiting patiently for several years for an
opportunity to expose the false money standard, and to show that the greatest of all favoritism is
that extended by the government to the money trust."
Senator LaFollette publicly charged that a money trust of fifty men controlled the United States.
George F. Baker, partner of J.P. Morgan, on being queried by reporters as to the truth of the
charge, replied that it was absolutely in error. He said that he knew from personal knowledge that
not more than eight men ran this country.
The Nation Magazine replied editorially to Senator LaFollette that "If there is a Money Trust, it
will not be practical to establish that it exercises its influence either for good or for bad."
Senator LaFollette remarks in his memoirs that his speech against the Money Trust later cost him
the Presidency of the United States, just as Woodrow Wilson’s early support of the Aldrich Plan
had brought him into consideration for that office.
Congress finally made a gesture to appease popular feeling by appointing a committee to
investigate the control of money and credit in the United States. This was the Pujo Committee , a
subcommittee of the House Banking and Currency Committee, which conducted the famous
"Money Trust" hearings in 1912, under the leadership of Congressman Arsene Pujo of Louisiana,
who was regarded as a spokesman for the oil interests. These hearings were deliberately dragged
on for five months, and resulted in six-thousand pages of printed testimony in four volumes.
Month after month, the bankers made the train trip from New York to Washington, testified
before the Committee and returned to New York. The hearings were extremely dull, and no
startling information turned up at these sessions. The bankers solemnly admitted that they were
indeed bankers, insisted that they always operated in the public interest, and claimed that they
were animated only by the highest ideals of public service, like the Congressmen before whom
they were testifying.
378
The paradoxical nature of the Pujo Money Trust Hearings may better be understood if we
examine the man who single-handedly carried on these hearings, Samuel Untermyer. He was one
of the principal contributors to Woodrow Wilson’s Presidential campaign fund, and was one of
the wealthiest corporation lawyers in New York. He states in his autobiography in "Who’s Who"
of 1926 that he once received a $775,000 fee for a single legal transaction, the successful merger of
the Utah Copper Company and the Boston Consolidated and Nevada Company, a firm with a
market value of one hundred million dollars. He refused to ask either Senator LaFollette or
Congressman Lindbergh to testify in the investigation which they alone had forced Congress to
hold. As Special Counsel for the Pujo Committee, Untermyer ran the hearings as a one-man
operation. The Congressional members, including its chairman, Congressman Arsene Pujo,
seemed to have been struck dumb from the commencement of the hearings to their conclusion.
One of these silent servants of the public was Congressman James Byrnes, of South Carolina,
representing Bernard Baruch’s home district, who later achieved fame as "Baruch’s man", and
was placed by Baruch in charge of the Office of War Mobilization during the Second World War.
Although he was a specialist in such matters, Untermyer did not ask any of the bankers about the
system of interlocking directorates through which they controlled industry. He did not go into
international gold movements, which were known as a factor in money panics, or the
international relationships between American bankers and European bankers. The international
banking houses of Eugene Meyer, Lazard Freres, J. & W. Seligman, Ladenburg Thalmann,
Speyer Brothers, M. M. Warburg, and the Rothschild Brothers did not arouse Samuel
Untermyer’s curiosity, although it was well known in the New York financial world that all of
these family banking houses either had branches or controlled subsidiary houses in Wall Street.
When Jacob Schiff appeared before the Pujo Committee, Mr. Untermyer’s adroit questioning
allowed Mr. Schiff to talk for many minutes without revealing any information about the
operations of the banking house of Kuhn Loeb Company, of which he was senior partner, and
which Senator Robert L. Owen had identified as the representative of the European Rothschilds
in the United States.
The aging J.P. Morgan, who had only a few more months to live, appeared before the Committee
to justify his decades of international financial deals. He stated for Mr. Untermyer’s edification
that "Money is a commodity." This was a favorite ploy of the money creators, as they wished to
make the public believe that the creation of money was a natural occur- rence akin to the growing
of a field of corn, although it was actually a bounty conferred upon the bankers by governments
over which they had gained control.
J.P. Morgan also told the Pujo Committee that, in making a loan, he seriously considered only
one factor, a man’s character; even the man’s ability to repay the loan, or his collateral, were of
little importance. This astonishing observation startled even the blasé members of the Committee.
The farce of the Pujo Committee ended without a single well-known opponent of the money
creators being allowed to appear or testify. As far as Samuel Untermyer was concerned, Senator
LaFollette and Congressman Charles Augustus Lindbergh had never existed. Nevertheless, these
Congressmen had managed to convince the people of the United States that the New York
bankers did have a monopoly on the nation’s money and credit. At the close of the hearings, the
bankers and their subsidized newspapers claimed that the only way to break this monopoly was
to enact the banking and currency legislation now being proposed to Congress, a bill which
would be passed a year later as the Federal Reserve Act. The press seriously demanded that the
New York banking monopoly be broken by turning over the administration of the new banking
system to the most knowledgeable banker of them all, Paul Warburg.
379
The Presidential campaign of 1912 records one of the more interesting political upsets in
American history. The incumbent, William Howard Taft, was a popular president, and the
Republicans, in a period of general prosperity, were firmly in control of the government through
a Republican majority in both houses. The Democratic challenger, Woodrow Wilson, Governor of
New Jersey, had no national recognition, and was a stiff, austere man who excited little public
support. Both parties included a monetary reform bill in their platforms: The Republicans were
committed to the Aldrich Plan, which had been denounced as a Wall Street plan, and the
Democrats had the Federal Reserve Act. Neither party bothered to inform the public that the bills
were almost identical except for the names. In retrospect, it seems obvious that the money
creators decided to dump Taft and go with Wilson. How do we know this? Taft seemed certain of
reelection, and Wilson would return to obscurity. Suddenly, Theodore Roosevelt "threw his hat
into the ring." He announced that he was running as a third party candidate, the "Bull Moose".
His candidacy would have been ludicrous had it not been for the fact that he was exceptionally
well-financed. Moreover, he was given unlimited press coverage, more than Taft and Wilson
combined. As a Republican ex-president, it was obvious that Roosevelt would cut deeply into
Taft’s vote. This proved the case, and Wilson won the election. To this day, no one can say what
Theodore Roosevelt’s program was, or why he would sabotage his own party. Since the bankers
were financing all three candi-dates, they would win regardless of the outcome. Later
Congressional testimony showed that in the firm of Kuhn Loeb Company, Felix Warburg was
supporting Taft, Paul Warburg and Jacob Schiff were supporting Wilson, and Otto Kahn was
supporting Roosevelt. The result was that a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President
were elected in 1912 to get the central bank legislation passed. It seems probable that the
identification of the Aldrich Plan as a Wall Street operation predicted that it would have a
difficult passage through Congress, as the Democrats would solidly oppose it, whereas a
successful Democratic candidate, supported by a Democratic Congress, would be able to pass the
central bank plan. Taft was thrown overboard because the bankers doubted he could deliver on
the Aldrich Plan, and Roosevelt was the instrument of his demise. *The final electoral vote in
1912 was Wilson - 409; Roosevelt - 167; and Taft - 15.
To further confuse the American people and blind them to the real purpose of the proposed
Federal Reserve Act, the architects of the Aldrich Plan, powerful Nelson Aldrich, although no
longer a senator, and Frank Vanderlip, president of the National City Bank, set up a hue and cry
against the bill. They gave interviews whenever they could find an audience denouncing the
proposed Federal Reserve Act as inimical to banking and to good government. The bugaboo of
inflation was raised because of the Act’s provisions for printing Federal Reserve notes. The
Nation, on October 23, 1913, pointed out, "Mr. Aldrich himself raised a hue and cry over the
issue of government "fiat money", that is, money issued without gold or bullion back of it,
although a bill to do precisely that had been passed in 1908 with his own name as author, and he
knew besides, that the ‘government’ had nothing to do with it, that the Federal Reserve Board
would have full charge of the issuing of such moneys."
Frank Vanderlip’s claims were so bizarre that Senator Robert L. Owen, chairman of the newly
formed Senate Banking and Currency Committee, which had been formed on March 18, 1913,
accused him of openly carrying on a campaign of misrepresentation about the bill. The interests
of the public, so Carter Glass claimed in a speech on September 10, 1913 to Congress, would be
protected by an advisory council of bankers. "There can be nothing sinister about its
transactions. Meeting with it at least four times a year will be a bankers’ advisory council
representing every regional reserve district in the system. How could we have exercised greater
caution in safeguarding the public interests?"
380
Glass claimed that the proposed Federal Advisory Council would force the Federal Reserve
Board of Governors to act in the best interest of the people.
Senator Root raised the problem of inflation, claiming that under the Federal Reserve Act, note
circulation would always expand indefinitely, causing great inflation. However, the later history
of the Federal Reserve System showed that it not only caused inflation, but that the issue of notes
could also be restricted, causing deflation, as occurred from 1929 to 1939.
One of the critics of the proposed "decentralized" system was a lawyer from Cleveland, Ohio,
Alfred Crozier: Crozier was called to testify for the Senate Committee because he had written a
provocative book in 1912, U.S. Money vs. Corporation Currency.* He attacked the Aldrich-
Vreeland Act of 1908 as a Wall Street instrument, and he pointed out that when our government
had to issue money based on privately owned securities, we were no longer a free nation.
Crozier testified before the Senate Committee that, "It should prohibit the granting or calling in
of loans for the purpose of influencing quotation prices of securities and the contracting of loans
or increasing interest rates in concert by the banks to influence public opinion or the action of
any legislative body. Within recent months, William McAdoo, Secretary of the Treasury of the
United States was reported in the open press as charging specifically that there was a conspiracy
among certain of the large banking interests to put a contraction upon the currency and to raise
interest rates for the sake of making the public force Congress into passing currency legislation
desired by those interests. The so-called administration currency bill grants just what Wall Street
and the big banks for twenty-five years have been striving for, that is, PRIVATE INSTEAD OF
PUBLIC CONTROL OF CURRENCY. It does this as completely as the Aldrich Bill. Both
measures rob the government and the people of all effective control over the public’s money, and
vest in the banks exclusively the dangerous power to make money among the people scarce or
plenty. The Aldrich Bill puts this power in one central bank. The Administration Bill puts it in
twelve regional central banks, all owned exclusively by the identical private interests that would
have owned and operated the Aldrich Bank. President Garfield shortly before his assassination
declared that whoever controls the supply of currency would control the business and activities of
the people. Thomas Jefferson warned us a hundred years ago that a private central bank issuing
381
the public currency was a greater menace to the liberties of the people than a standing army."
It is interesting to note how many assassinations of Presidents of the United States follow their
concern with the issuing of public currency; Lincoln with his Greenback, non-interest-bearing
notes, and Garfield, making a pronouncement on currency problems just before he was
assassinated.
We now begin to understand why such a lengthy campaign of planned deception was necessary,
from the secret conference at Jekyll Island to the identical "reform" plans proposed by the
Democratic and Republican parties under different names. The bankers could not wrest control
of the issuance of money from the citizens of the United States, to whom it had been designated
through its Congress by the Constitution, until the Congress granted them their monopoly for a
central bank. Therefore, much of the influence exerted to get the Federal Reserve Act passed was
done behind the scenes, principally by two shadowy, non-elected persons: The German
immigrant, Paul Warburg, and Colonel Edward Mandell House of Texas.
Paul Warburg made an appearance before the House Banking and Currency Committee in 1913,
in which he briefly stated his background: "I am a member of the banking house of Kuhn, Loeb
Company. I came over to this country in 1902, having been born and educated in the banking
business in Hamburg, Germany, and studied banking in London and Paris, and have gone all
around the world. In the Panic of 1907, the first suggestion I made was ‘Let us get a national
clearing house.’ The Aldrich Plan contains some things which are simply fundamental rules of
banking. Your aim in this plan (the Owen-Glass bill) must be the same--centralizing of reserves,
mobilizing commercial credit, and getting an elastic note issue."
Warburg’s phrase, "mobilization of credit" was an important one, because the First World War
was due to begin shortly, and the first task of the Federal Reserve System would be to finance the
World War. The European nations were already bankrupt, because they had maintained large
standing armies for almost fifty years, a situation created by their own central banks, and
therefore they could not finance a war. A central bank always imposes a tremendous burden on
the nation for "rearmament" and "defense", in order to create inextinguishable debt,
simultaneously creating a military dictatorship and enslaving the people to pay the "interest" on
the debt which the bankers have artificially created.
In the Senate debate on the Federal Reserve Act, Senator Stone said on December 12, 1913,
"The great banks for years have sought to have and control agents in the Treasury to serve their
purposes. Let me quote from this World article, ‘Just as soon as Mr. McAdoo came to
Washington, a woman whom the National City Bank had installed in the Treasury Department to
get advance information on the condition of banks, and other matters of interest to the big Wall
Street group, was removed. Immediately the Secretary and the Assistant Secretary, John Skelton
Williams, were criticized severely by the agents of the Wall Street group.’"
"I myself have known more than one occasion when bankers refused credit to men who opposed
382
their political views and purposes. When Senator Aldrich and others were going around the
country exploiting this scheme, the big banks of New York and Chicago were engaged in raising a
munificent fund to bolster up the Aldrich propaganda. I have been told by bankers of
my own state that contributions to this exploitation fund had been demanded of them and that
they had contributed because they were afraid of being blacklisted or boycotted. There are
bankers of this country who are enemies of the public welfare. In the past, a few great banks have
followed policies and projects that have paralyzed the industrial energies of the country to
perpetuate their tremendous power over the financial and business industries of America."
Carter Glass states in his autobiography that he was summoned by Woodrow Wilson to the
White House, and that Wilson told him he intended to make the reserve notes obligations of the
United States. Glass says, "I was for an instant speechless. I remonstrated. There is not any
government obligation here, Mr. President. Wilson said he had had to compromise on this point
in order to save the bill."
The term "compromise" on this point came directly from Paul Warburg. Col. Elisha Ely
Garrison, in Roosevelt,* Wilson and the Federal Reserve Law wrote,
"In 1911, Lawrence Abbot, Mr. Roosevelt’s private officer at ‘The Outlook’ handed me a copy of
the so-called Aldrich Plan for currency reform. I said, I could not believe that Mr. Warburg was
the author. This plan is nothing more than the Aldrich-Vreeland legislation which provided for
currency issue against securities. Warburg knows that as well as I do. I am going to see him at
once and ask him about it. All right, the truth. Yes, I wrote it, he said. Why? I asked. It was a
compromise, answered Warburg."13
Garrison says that Warburg wrote him on February 8, 1912.
"I have no doubt that at the end of a thorough discussion, either you will see it my way or I will
see it yours--but I hope you will see it mine."
This was another famous Warburg saying when he secretly lobbied Congressmen to support his
interest, the veiled threat that they should "see it his way". Those who did not found large sums
contributed to their opponents at the next elections, and usually went down in defeat.
Col. Garrison, an agent of Brown Brothers bankers, later Brown Brothers Harriman, had entree
everywhere in the financial community. He writes of Col. House, "Col. House agreed entirely
with the early writing of Mr. Warburg." Page 337, he quotes Col. House:
383
"I am also suggesting that the Central Board be increased from four members to five and their
terms lengthened from eight to ten years. This would give stability and would take away the
power of a President to change the personnel of the board during a single term of office."
House’s phrase, "take away the power of a President" is significant, because later Presidents
found themselves helpless to change the direction of the government because they did not have
the power to change the composition of the Federal Reserve Board to attain a majority on it
during that President’s term of office. Garrison also wrote in this book,
"Paul Warburg is the man who got the Federal Reserve Act together after the Aldrich Plan
aroused such nationwide resentment and opposition. The mastermind of both plans was Baron
Alfred Rothschild of London."
Colonel Edward Mandell House* was referred to by Rabbi Stephen Wise in his autobiography,
Challenging Years as "the unofficial Secretary of State". House noted that he and Wilson knew
that in passing the Federal Reserve Act, they had created an instrument more powerful than the
Supreme Court. The Federal Reserve Board of Governors actually comprised a Supreme Court of
Finance, and there was no appeal from any of their rulings.
In 1911, prior to Wilson’s taking office as President, House had returned to his home in Texas and
completed a book called Philip Dru, Administrator. Ostensibly a novel, it was actually a detailed
plan for the future government of the United States, "which would establish Socialism as
dreamed by Karl Marx", according to House. This "novel" predicted the enactment of the
graduated income tax, excess profits tax, unemployment insurance, social security, and a flexible
currency system. In short, it was the blueprint which was later followed by the Woodrow Wilson
and Franklin D. Roosevelt administrations. It was published "anonymously" by B. W. Huebsch
of New York, and widely circulated among government officials, who were left in no doubt as to
its authorship. George Sylvester Viereck**, who knew House for years, later wrote an account of
the Wilson-House relationship, The Strangest Friendship in History.14 In 1955, Westbrook
Pegler, the Hearst columnist from 1932 to 1956, heard of the Philip Dru book and called Viereck
to ask if he had a copy. Viereck sent Pegler his copy of the book, and Pegler wrote a column about
it, stating:
"One of the institutions outlined in Philip Dru is the Federal Reserve System. The Schiffs, the
Warburgs, the Kahns, the Rockefellers and Morgans put their faith in House. The Schiff,
Warburg, Rockefeller and Morgan interests were personally represented in the mysterious
conference at Jekyll Island. Frankfurter landed on the Harvard law faculty, thanks to a financial
contribution to Harvard by Felix Warburg and Paul Warburg, and so we got Alger and Donald
Hiss, Lee Pressman, Harry Dexter White and many
384
other protégés of Little Weenie."*
House’s openly Socialistic views were forthrightly expressed in Philip Dru, Administrator; on
pages 57-58, House wrote:
"In a direct and forceful manner, he pointed out that our civilization was fundamentally wrong,
inasmuch, among other things, as it restricted efficiency; that if society were properly organized,
there would be none who were not sufficiently clothed and fed. The result, that the laws, habits
and ethical training in vogue were alike responsible for the inequalities in opportunity and the
consequent wide difference between the few and the many; that the results of such conditions was
to render inefficient a large part of the population, the percentage differing in each country in the
ratio that education and enlightenment and unselfish laws bore to ignorance, bigotry and selfish
laws."15
In his book, House (Dru) envisions himself becoming a dictator and forcing on the people his
radical views, page 148: "They recognized the fact that Dru dominated the situation and that a
master mind had at last risen in the Republic." He now assumes the title of General. "General
Dru announced his purpose of assuming the powers of a dictator . . . they were assured that he
was free from any personal ambition . . . he proclaimed himself ‘Administrator of the
Republic.’"*
This pensive dreamer who imagined himself a dictator actually managed to place himself in the
position of the confidential advisor to the President of the United States, and then to have many
of his desires enacted into law! On page 227, he lists some of the laws he wishes to enact as
dictator. Among them are an old age pension law, laborers insurance compensation, cooperative
markets, a federal reserve banking system, cooperative loans, national employment bureaus, and
other "social legislation", some of which was enacted during Wilson’s administration, and others
during the Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration. The latter was actually a continuation of the
Wilson Administration, with many of the same personnel, and with House guiding the
administration from behind the scenes.
Like most of the behind-the-scenes operators in this book, Col. Edward Mandell House had the
obligatory "London connection". Originally a Dutch family, "Huis", his ancestors had lived in
England for three hundred years, after which his father settled in Texas, where he made a fortune
in blockade-running during the Civil War, shipping cotton and other contraband to his British
connections, including the Rothschilds, and bringing back supplies for the beleaguered Texans.
The senior House, not trusting the volatile Texas situation, prudently deposited all his profits
from his blockade-running in gold with Baring banking house in London*. At the close of the
Civil War, he was one of the wealthiest men in Texas. He named his son "Mandell" after one of
his merchant associates. According to Arthur Howden Smith, when House’s father died in 1880,
his estate was distributed among his sons as follows: Thomas William got the banking business;
John, the sugar plantation; and Edward M. the cotton plantations, which brought him an income
385
of $20,000 a year.16
At the age of twelve, the young Edward Mandell House had brain fever, and was later further
crippled by sunstroke. He was a semi-invalid, and his ailments gave him an odd Oriental
appearance. He never entered any profession, but used his father’s money to become the
kingmaker of Texas politics, successively electing five governors from 1893 to 1911. In 1911 he
began to support Wilson for president, and threw the crucial Texas delegation to him which
ensured his nomination. House met Wilson for the first time at the Hotel Gotham, May 31, 1912.
In The Strangest Friendship In History, Woodrow Wilson and Col. House, by George Sylvester
Viereck, Viereck writes:
"What," I asked House, "cemented your friendship?" "The identity of our temperaments and
our
public policies," answered House. "What was your purpose and his?" "To translate into
legislation certain liberal and progressive ideas."17
House told Viereck that when he went to Wilson at the White House, he handed him $35,000.
This was exceeded only by the $50,000 which Bernard Baruch had given Wilson.
The successful enactment of House’s programs did not escape the notice of other Wilson
associates. In Vol. 1, page 157 of The Intimate Papers of Col. House, House notes, "Cabinet
members like Mr. Lane and Mr. Bryan commented upon the influence of Dru with the President.
‘All that the book has said should be,’ wrote Lane, ‘comes about. The President comes to ‘Philip
Dru’ in the end.’"18
House recorded some of his efforts on behalf of the Federal Reserve Act in The Intimate Papers of
Col. House,
"December 19, 1912. I talked with Paul Warburg over the phone concerning currency reform. I
told of my trip to Washington and what I had done there to get it in working order. I told him
that the Senate and the Congressmen seemed anxious to do what he desired, and that Presidentelect
Wilson thought straight concerning the issue."19
Thus we have Warburg’s agent in Washington, Col. House, assuring him that the Senate and
Congressmen will do what he desires, and that the President-elect "thought straight concerning
the issue." In this context, representative government seems to have ceased to exist. House
continues in his "Papers":
"March 13, 1913. Warburg and I had an intimate discussion concerning currency reform.
386
March 27, 1913. Mr. J.P. Morgan, Jr. and Mr. Denny of his firm came promptly at five.
McAdoo came about ten minutes afterward. Morgan had a currency plan already printed. I
suggested he have it typewritten, so it would not seem too prearranged, and send it to Wilson and
myself today.
July 23, 1913. I tried to show Mayor Quincy (of Boston) the folly of the Eastern bankers taking
an antagonistic attitude towards the Currency Bill. I explained to Major Henry Higginson* with
what care the bill had been framed. Just before he arrived, I had finished a review by Professor
Sprague of Harvard of Paul Warburg’s criticism of the Glass-Owen Bill, and will transmit it to
Washington tomorrow. Every banker known to Warburg, who knows the subject practically, has
been called up about the making of the bill.
October 13, 1913. Paul Warburg was my first caller today. He came to discuss the currency
measure. There are many features of the Owen-Glass Bill that he does not approve. I promised to
put him in touch with McAdoo and Senator Owen so that he might discuss it with them.
November 17, 1913. Paul Warburg telephoned about his trip to Washington. Later, he and Mr.
Jacob Schiff came over for a few minutes.Warburg did most of the talking. He had a new
suggestion in regard to grouping the regular reserve banks so as to get the units welded together
and in easier touch with the Federal Reserve Board."
George Sylvester Viereck in The Strangest Friendship in History, Woodrow Wilson and Col.
House wrote: "The Schiffs, the Warburgs, the Kahns, the Rockefellers, the Morgans put their
faith in House. When the Federal Reserve legislation at last assumed definite shape, House was
the intermediary between the White House and the financiers."20
On page 45, Viereck notes, "Col. House looks upon the reform of the monetary system as the
crowning internal achievement of the Wilson Administration."21
The Glass Bill (the House version of the final Federal Reserve Act) had passed the House on
September 18, 1913 by 287 to 85. On December 19, 1913, the Senate passed their version by a
vote of 54-34. More than forty important differences in the House and Senate versions remained
to be settled, and the opponents of the bill in both houses of Congress were led to believe that
many weeks would yet elapse before the Conference bill would be ready for consideration. The
Congressmen prepared to leave Washington for the annual Christmas recess, assured that the
Conference bill would not be brought up until the following year. Now the money creators
prepared and executed the most brilliant stroke of their plan. In a single day, they ironed out all
forty of the disputed passages in the bill and quickly brought it to a vote. On Monday, December
22, 1913, the bill was passed by the House 282-60 and the Senate 43-23.
On December 21, 1913, The New York Times commented editorially on the act, "New York will be
on a firmer basis of financial growth, and we shall soon see her the money centre of the world."
The New York Times reported on the front page, Monday, December 22, 1913 in headlines:
MONEY BILL MAY BE LAW TODAY--CONFEREES HAD ADJUSTED NEARLY ALL
DIFFERENCES AT 1:30 THIS MORNING--NO DEPOSIT GUARANTEES--SENATE YIELDS
ON THIS POINT BUT PUTS THROUGH MANY OTHER CHANGES "With almost
unprecedented speed, the conference to adjust the House and Senate differences on the Currency
Bill practically completed its labours early this morning. On Saturday the Conferees did little
more than dispose of the preliminaries, leaving forty essential differences to be thrashed out
Sunday. . . . No other legislation of importance will be taken up in either House of Congress this
387
week. Members of both houses are already preparing to leave Washington."
"Unprecedented speed", says The New York Times. One sees the fine hand of Paul Warburg in
this final strategy. Some of the bill’s most vocal critics had already left Washington. It was a longstanding
political courtesy that important legislation would not be acted upon during the week
before Christmas, but this tradition was rudely shattered in order to perpetrate the Federal
Reserve Act on the American people.
The Times buried a brief quote from Congressman Lindbergh that "the bill would establish the
most gigantic trust on earth," and quoted Representative Guernsey of Maine, a Republican on
the House Banking and Currency Committee, that "This is an inflation bill, the only question
being the extent of the inflation."
Congressman Lindbergh said on that historic day, to the House:
"This Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this bill, the
invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalized. The people may not know it
immediately, but the day of reckoning is only a few years removed. The trusts will soon realize
that they have gone too far even for their own good. The people must make a declaration of
independence to relieve themselves from the Monetary Power. This they will be able to do by
taking control of Congress. Wall Streeters could not cheat us if you Senators and Representatives
did not make a humbug of Congress. . . . If we had a people’s Congress, there would be stability.
The greatest crime of Congress is its currency system. The worst legislative crime of the ages is
perpetrated by this banking bill. The caucus and the party bosses have again operated and
prevented the people from getting the benefit of their own government."
The December 23, 1913 New York Times editorially commented, in contrast to Congressman
Lindbergh’s criticism of the bill, "The Banking and Currency Bill became better and sounder
every time it was sent from one end of the Capitol to the other. Congress worked under public
supervision in making the bill."
By "public supervision", The Times apparently meant Paul Warburg, who for several days had
maintained a small office in the Capitol building, where he directed the successful pre-Christmas
campaign to pass the bill, and where Senators and Congressmen came hourly at his bidding to
carry out his strategy.
The "unprecedented speed" with which the Federal Reserve Act had been passed by Congress
during what became known as "the Christmas massacre" had one unforeseen aspect. Woodrow
Wilson was taken unaware, as he, like many others, had been assured the bill would not come up
for a vote until after Christmas. Now he refused to sign it, because he objected to the provisions
388
for the selection of Class B. Directors. William L. White relates in his biography of Bernard
Baruch that Baruch, a principal contributor to Wilson’s campaign fund, was stunned when he
was informed that Wilson refused to sign the bill. He hurried to the White House and assured
Wilson that this was a minor matter, which could be fixed up later through "administrative
processes". The important thing was to get the Federal Reserve Act signed into law at once. With
this reassurance, Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act on December 23, 1913. History proved
that on that day, the Constitution ceased to be the governing covenant of the American people,
and our liberties were handed over to a small group of international bankers.
The December 24, 1913 New York Times carried a front page headline "WILSON SIGNS THE
CURRENCY BILL!" Below it, also in capital letters, were two further headlines, "PROSPERITY
TO BE FREE" and "WILL HELP EVERY CLASS". Who could object to any law which
provided benefits to everyone? The Times described the festive atmosphere while Wilson’s family
and government officials watched him sign the bill. "The Christmas spirit pervaded the
gathering," exulted The Times.
In his biography of Carter Glass, Rixey Smith states that those present at the signing of the bill
included Vice President Marshall, Secretary Bryan, Carter Glass, Senator Owen, Secretary
McAdoo, Speaker Champ Clark, and other Treasury officials. None of the real writers of the bill,
the draftees of Jekyll Island, were present. They had prudently absented themselves from the
scene of their victory. Rixey Smith also wrote, "It was as though Christmas had come two days
early." On December 24, 1913, Jacob Schiff wrote to Col. House,
"My dear Col. House. I want to say a word to you for the silent, but no doubt effective work you
have done in the interest of currency legislation and to congratulate you that the measure
has finally been enacted into law. I am with good wishes, faithfully yours, JACOB SCHIFF."
Representative Moore of Kansas, in commenting on the passage of the Act, said to the House of
Representatives:
"The President of the United States now becomes the absolute dictator of all the finances of the
country. He appoints a controlling board of seven men, all of whom belong to his political party,
even though it is a minority. The Secretary of the Treasury is to rule supreme whenever there is
a difference of opinion between himself and the Federal Reserve Board. AND, only one member
of the Board is to pass out of office while the President is in office."
The ten year terms of office of the members of the Board were lengthened by the Banking Act of
1935 to fourteen years, which meant that these directors of the nation’s finances, although not
elected by the people, held office longer than three presidents.
While Col. House, Jacob Schiff and Paul Warburg basked in the glow of a job well done, the
other actors in this drama were subject to later afterthoughts. Woodrow Wilson wrote in 1916,
389
National Economy and the Banking System, Sen. Doc. No. 3, No. 223, 76th Congress, 1st session,
1939: "Our system of credit is concentrated (in the Federal Reserve System). The growth of the
nation, therefore, and all our activities, are in the hands of a few men."
When he was asked by Clarence W. Barron whether he approved of the bill as it was finally
passed. Warburg remarked, "Well, it hasn’t got quite everything we want, but the lack can be
adjusted later by administrative processes."
Woodrow Wilson and Carter Glass are given credit for the Act by most contemporary historians,
but of all those concerned, Wilson had least to do with Congressional action on the bill. George
Creel, a veteran Washington correspondent, wrote in Harper’s Weekly, June 26, 1915:
"As far as the Democratic Party was concerned, Woodrow Wilson was without influence, save for
the patronage he possessed. It was Bryan who whipped Congress into line on the tariff bill, on
the Panama Canal tolls repeal, and on the currency bill." Mr. Bryan later wrote, "That is the one
thing in my public career that I regret--my work to secure the enactment of the Federal Reserve
Law."
On December 25, 1913, The Nation pointed out that "The New York Stock Market began to rise
steadily upon news that the Senate was ready to pass the Federal Reserve Act."
This belies the claim that the Federal Reserve Act was a monetary reform bill. The New York
Stock Exchange is generally considered an accurate barometer of the true meaning of any
financial legislation passed in Washington. Senator Aldrich also decided that he no longer had
misgivings about the Federal Reserve Act. In a magazine which he owned, and which he called
The Independent, he wrote in July, 1914: "Before the passage of this Act, the New York bankers
could only dominate the reserves of New York. Now we are able to dominate the bank reserves of
the entire country."
H.W. Loucks denounced the Federal Reserve Act in The Great Conspiracy of the House of
Morgan,
"In the Federal Reserve Law, they have wrested from the people and secured for themselves the
constitutional power to issue money and regulate the value thereof." On page 31, Loucks writes,
"The House of Morgan is now in supreme control of our industry, commerce and political affairs.
They are in complete control of the policy making of the Democratic, Republican and Progressive
parties. The present extraordinary propaganda for ‘preparedness’ is planned more for home
coercion than for defense against foreign aggression."22
390
The signing of the Federal Reserve Act by Woodrow Wilson represented the culmination of years
of collusion with his intimate friend, Col. House, and Paul Warburg. One of the men with whom
House became acquainted in the Wilson Administration was Franklin D. Roosevelt, Assistant
Secretary of Navy. As soon as he obtained the Democratic nomination for President, in 1932,
Franklin D. Roosevelt made a "pilgrimage" to Col. House’s home at Magnolia, Mass. Roosevelt,
after the Republican hiatus of the 1920s, filled in the goals of Philip Dru, Administrator,23 which
Wilson had not been able to carry out. The late Roosevelt achievements included the enactment
of the social security program, excess profits tax, and the expansion of the graduated income tax
to 90% of earned income.
House’s biographer, Charles Seymour, wrote: "He was wearied by the details of party politics
and appointments. Even the share he had taken in constructive domestic legislation (the
Federal Reserve Act, tariff revision, and the Income Tax amendment) did not satisfy him. From
the beginning of 1914 he gave more and more of his time to what he regarded as the highest
form of politics and that for which he was particularly suited--international affairs."24
In 1938, shortly before he died, House told Charles Seymour, "During the last fifteen years I have
been close to the center of things, although few people suspect it. No important foreigner has
come to the United States without talking to me. I was close to the movement that nominated
Roosevelt. He has given me a free hand in advising him. All the Ambassadors have reported to me
frequently."
A comparative print of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 as passed by the House of
Representatives and amended by the Senate shows the following striking change:
The Senate struck out, "To suspend the officials of Federal Reserve banks for cause, stated in
writing with opportunity of hearing, require the removal of said official for incompetency,
dereliction of duty, fraud or deceit, such removal to be subject to approval by the President of the
United States." This was changed by the Senate to read "To suspend or remove any officer or
director of any Federal Reserve Bank, the cause of such removal to be forthwith communicated
in writing by the Federal Reserve Board to the removed officer or director and to said bank."
This completely altered the conditions under which an officer or director might be removed. We
no longer know what the conditions for removal are, or the cause. Apparently incompetency,
dereliction of duty, fraud or deceit do not matter to the Federal Reserve Board. Also, the removed
officer does not have the opportunity of appeal to the President. In answer to written inquiry, the
Assistant Secretary of the Federal Reserve Board replied that only one officer has been removed
"for cause" in the thirty-six years, the name and details of this matter being a "private concern"
between the individual, the Reserve Bank concerned, and the Federal Reserve Board.
The Federal Reserve System began its operations in 1914 with the activity of the Organization
Committee, appointed by Woodrow Wilson, and composed of Secretary of the Treasury William
McAdoo, who was his son-in-law, Secretary of Agriculture Houston and Comptroller of the
Currency John Skelton Williams.
On January 6, 1914. J.P. Morgan met with the Organizing Committee in New York. He informed
them that there should not be more than seven regional districts in the new system.
391
This committee was to select the locations of the "decentralized" reserve banks. They were
empowered to select from eight to twelve reserve banks, although J.P. Morgan had testified he
thought that not more than four should be selected. Much politicking went into the selection of
these sites, as the twelve cities thus favored would become enormously important as centers of
finance. New York, of course, was a foregone conclusion. Richmond was the next selection, as a
payoff to Carter Glass and Woodrow Wilson, the two Virginians who had been given political
credit for the Federal Reserve Act. The other selections of the Committee were Boston,
Philadelphia, Cleveland, Chicago, St. Louis, Atlanta, Dallas, Minneapolis, Kansas City, and San
Francisco. All of these cities later developed important "financial districts" as the result of this
selection.
These local battles, however, paled in view of the complete dominance of the Federal Reserve
bank of New York in the system. Ferdinand Lundberg pointed out, in America’s Sixty Families,
that, "In practice, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York became the fountainhead of the system
of twelve regional banks, for New York was the money market of the nation. The other eleven
banks were so many expensive mausoleums erected to salve the local pride and quell the
Jacksonian fears of the hinterland. Benjamin Strong, president of the Bankers Trust (J.P.
Morgan) was selected as the first Governor of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Adept in high
finance, Strong for many years manipulated the country’s monetary system at the discretion of
directors representing the leading New York banks. Under Strong, the Reserve System was
brought into interlocking relations with the Bank of England and the Bank of France. Benjamin
Strong held his position as Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York until his sudden
death in 1928, during a Congressional investigation of the secret meetings between Reserve
Governors and heads of European central banks which brought on the Great Depression of 1929-
31."25
Strong had married the daughter of the President of Bankers Trust, which brought him into the
line of succession in the dynastic intrigues which play such an important role in the world of high
finance. He also had been a member of the original Jekyll Island group, the First Name Club, and
was thus qualified for the highest position in the Federal Reserve System, as the Governor of the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York which dominated the entire system.
Paul Warburg also is mentioned in J. Laurence Laughlin’s definitive volume, The Federal
Reserve Act, Its Origins and Purposes,
"Mr. Paul Warburg of Kuhn, Loeb Company offered in March, 1910 a fairly well thought out
plan to be known as the United Reserve Bank of the United States. This was published in The
New York Times of March 24, 1910. The group interested in the purposes of the National
Monetary Commission met secretly at Jekyll Island for about two weeks in December, 1910, and
concentrated on the preparation of a bill to be presented to Congress by the National Monetary
Commission. The men who were present at Jekyll Island were Senator Aldrich, H. P. Davison of
J.P. Morgan Company, Paul Warburg of Kuhn, Loeb Company, Frank Vanderlip of the National
City Bank, and Charles D. Norton of the First National Bank. No doubt the ablest banking mind
392
in the group was that of Mr. Warburg, who had had a European banking training. Senator
Aldrich had no special training in banking."26
A mention of Paul Warburg, written by Harold Kelloch, and titled, "Warburg the Revolutionist"
appeared in the Century Magazine, May, 1915. Kelloch writes:
"He imposed his ideas on a nation of a hundred million people . . . Without Mr. Warburg there
would have been no Federal Reserve Act. The banking house of Warburg and Warburg in
Hamburg has always been strictly a family business. None but a Warburg has been eligible for it,
but all Warburgs have been born into it. In 1895 he married the daughter of the late Solomon
Loeb of Kuhn Loeb Company. He became a member of Kuhn Loeb Company in 1902. Mr.
Warburg’s salary from his private business has been approximately a half million a year. Mr.
Warburg’s motives had been purely those of patriotic self-sacrifice."
The true purposes of the Federal Reserve Act soon began to disillusion many who had at first
believed in its claims. W. H. Allen wrote in Moody’s Magazine, 1916,
"The purpose of the Federal Reserve Act was to prevent concentration of money in the New York
banks by making it profitable for country bankers to use their funds at home, but the
movement of currency shows that the New York banks gained from the interior in every month
except December, 1915, since
the Act went into effect. The stabilization of rates has taken place in New York alone. In other
parts, high rates continue. The Act, which was to deprive Wall Street of its funds for speculation,
has really given the bulls and the bears such a supply as they have never had before. The truth is
that far from having clogged the channel to Wall Street, as Mr. Glass so confidently boasted, it
actually widened the old channels and opened up two new ones. The first of these leads directly
to Washington and gives Wall Street a string on all the surplus cash in the United States
Treasury. Besides, in the power to issue bank-note currency, it furnishes an inexhaustible supply
of credit money; the second channel leads to the great central banks of Europe, whereby, through
393
the sale of acceptances, virtually guaranteed by the United States Government, Wall Street is
granted immunity from foreign demands for gold which have precipitated every great crisis in
our history."
For many years, there has been considerable mystery about who actually owns the stock of the
Federal Reserve Banks. Congressman Wright Patman, leading critic of the System, tried to find
out who the stockholders were. The stock in the original twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks
was purchased by national banks in those twelve regions. Because the Federal Reserve Bank of
New York was to set the interest rates and direct open market operations, thus controlling the
daily supply and price of money throughout the United States, it is the stockholders of that bank
who are the real directors of the entire system. For the first time, it can be revealed who those
stockholders are. This writer has the original organization certificates of the twelve Federal
Reserve Banks, giving the ownership of shares by the national banks in each district. The Federal
Reserve Bank of New York issued 203,053 shares, and, as filed with the Comptroller of the
Currency May 19, 1914, the large New York City banks took more than half of the outstanding
shares. The Rockefeller Kuhn, Loeb-controlled National City Bank took the largest number of
shares of any bank, 30,000 shares. J.P. Morgan’s First National Bank took 15,000 shares. When
these two banks merged in 1955, they owned in one block almost one fourth of the shares in the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which controlled the entire system, and thus they could name
Paul Volcker or anyone else they chose to be Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of
Governors. Chase National Bank took 6,000 shares. The Marine Nation Bank of Buffalo, later
known as Marine Midland, took 6,000 shares. This bank was owned by the Schoellkopf family,
which controlled Niagara Power Company and other large interests. National Bank of Commerce
of New York City took 21,000 shares. The shareholders of these banks which own the stock of the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York are the people who have controlled our political and economic
destinies since 1914. They are the Rothschilds, of Europe, Lazard Freres (Eugene Meyer), Kuhn
Loeb Company, Warburg Company, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, the Rockefeller family,
and the J.P. Morgan interests. These interests have merged and consolidated in recent years, so
that the control is much more concentrated. National Bank of Commerce is now Morgan
Guaranty Trust Company. Lehman Brothers has merged with Kuhn, Loeb Company, First
National Bank has merged with the National City Bank, and in the other eleven Federal Reserve
Districts, these same shareholders indirectly own or control shares in those banks, with the other
shares owned by the leading families in those areas who own or control the principal industries in
these regions.* The "local" families set up regional councils, on orders from New York, of such
groups as the Council on Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission, and other instruments of
control devised by their masters. They finance and control political developments in their area,
name candidates, and are seldom successfully opposed in their plans.
With the setting up of the twelve "financial districts" through the Federal Reserve Banks, the
traditional division of the United States into the forty-eight states was overthrown, and we
entered the era of "regionalism", or twelve regions which had no relation to the traditional state
boundaries.
These developments following the passing of the Federal Reserve Act proved every one of the
allegations Thomas Jefferson had made against a central bank in 1791: that the subscribers to
the Federal Reserve Bank stock had formed a corporation, whose stock could be and was held by
aliens; that this stock would be transmitted to a certain line of successors; that it would be placed
beyond forfeiture and escheat; that they would receive a monopoly of banking, which was against
394
the laws of monopoly; and that they now had the power to make laws, paramount to the laws of
the states. No state legislature can countermand any of the laws laid down by the Federal Reserve
Board of Governors for the benefit of their private stockholders. This board issues laws as to
what the interest rate shall be, what the quantity of money shall be and what the price of money
shall be. All of these powers abrogate the powers of the state legislatures and their responsibility
to the citizens of those states.
The New York Times stated that the Federal Reserve Banks would be ready for business on
August 1, 1914, but they actually began operations on November 16, 1914. At that time, their
total assets were listed at $143,000,000, from the sale of shares in the Federal Reserve Banks to
stockholders of the national banks which subscribed to it.
The actual part of this $143,000,000 which was paid in for these shares remains shrouded in
mystery. Some historians believe that the shareholders only paid about half of the amount in
cash; others believe that they paid in no cash at all, but merely sent in checks which they drew on
the national banks which they owned. This seems most likely, that from the very outset, the
Federal Reserve operations were "paper issued against paper", that bookkeeping entries
comprised the only values which changed hands.
The men whom President Woodrow Wilson chose to make up the first Federal Reserve Board of
Governors were men drawn from the banking group. He had been nominated for the Presidency
by the Democratic Party, which had claimed to represent the "common man" against the "vested
interests". According to Wilson himself, he was allowed to choose only one man for the Federal
Reserve Board. The others were chosen by the New York bankers. Wilson’s choice was Thomas D.
Jones, a trustee of Princeton and director of International Harvester and other corporations. The
other members were Adolph C. Miller, economist from Rockefeller’s University of Chicago and
Morgan’s Harvard University, and also serving as Assistant Secretary of the Interior; Charles S.
Hamlin, who had served previously as an Assistant Secretary to the Treasury for eight years; F.A.
Delano, a Roosevelt relative, and railroad operator who took over a number of railroads for
Kuhn, Loeb Company, W.P.G. Harding, President of the First National Bank of Atlanta; and
Paul Warburg of Kuhn, Loeb Company. According to The Intimate Papers of Col. House,
Warburg was appointed because "The President accepted (House’s) suggestion of Paul Warburg
of New York because of his interest and experience in currency problems under both Republican
and Democratic Administrations."27 Like Warburg, Delano had also been born outside the
continental limits of the United States, although he was an American citizen. Delano’s father,
Warren Delano, according to Dr. Josephson and other authorities, was active in Hong Kong in
the Chinese opium trade, and Frederick Delano was born in Hong Kong in 1863.
In The Money Power of Europe, Paul Emden writes that "The Warburgs reached their
outstanding eminence during the last twenty years of the past century, simultaneously with the
growth of Kuhn, Loeb Company in New York, with whom they stood in a personal union and
family relationship. Paul Warburg with magnificent success carried through in 1913 the
reorganization of the American banking system, at which he had with Senator Aldrich been
working since 1911, and thus most thoroughly consolidated the currency and finances of the
United States."
The New York Times* had noted on May 6, 1914 that Paul Warburg had "retired" from Kuhn,
Loeb Company in order to serve on the Federal Reserve Board, although he had not resigned his
directorships of American Surety Company, Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, National Railways of
Mexico, Wells Fargo, or Westinghouse Electric Corporation, but would continue to serve on these
boards of directors. "Who’s Who" listed him as holding these directorships and in addition,
395
American I.G. Chemical Company (branch of I.G. Farben), Agfa Ansco Corporation,
Westinghouse Acceptance Company, Warburg Company of Amsterdam, chairman of the Board
of International Acceptance Bank, and numerous other banks, railways and corporations. "Kuhn
Loeb & Co. with Warburg have four votes or the majority of the Federal Reserve Board."29
Despite his retirement from Kuhn, Loeb Company in May of 1914 to serve on the Federal
Reserve Board of Governors, Warburg was asked to appear before a Senate Subcommittee in
June of 1914 and answer some questions about his behind-the-scenes role in getting the Federal
Reserve Act through Congress. This might have meant some questions about the secret
conference in Jekyll Island, and Warburg refused to appear. On July 7, 1914 he wrote a letter to
G.M. Hitchcock, Chairman of the Senate Banking and Currency Committee, stating that it
might impair his usefulness on the Board if he were required to answer any questions, and that
he would therefore withdraw his name. It seemed that Warburg was prepared to bluff the Senate
Committee into confirming him without any questions asked. On July 10, 1914, The New York
Times defended Warburg on the editorial page and denounced the "Senatorial Inquisition".
Since Warburg had not yet been asked any questions, the term "Inquisition" seemed remarkably
inappropriate, nor was there any real danger that the Senators were preparing to use instruments
of torture on Mr. Warburg. The imbroglio was resolved when the Senate Committee, in abject
surrender, agreed that Mr. Warburg would be given a list of questions in advance of his
appearance so that he could go over them, and that he could be excused from answering any
questions which might tend to impair his service on the Board of Governors. The Nation reported
on July 23, 1914 that "Mr. Warburg finally had a conference with Senator O’Gorman and agreed
to meet the members of the Senate Subcommittee informally, with a view to coming to an
understanding, and to giving them any reasonable information they might desire. The opinion in
Washington is that Mr. Warburg’s confirmation is assured." The Nation was correct. Mr.
Warburg was confirmed, the way having been smoothed by his "fixer", Senator O’Gorman of
New York, more familiarly known as "the Senator from Wall Street". Senator Robert L. Owen
had previously charged that Warburg was the American representative of the Rothschild family,
but questioning him about this would indeed have smacked of the mediaeval "Inquisition", and
his fellow Senators were too civilized to indulge in such barbarity*.
During the Senate Hearings on Paul Warburg before the Senate Banking and Currency
Committee, August 1, 1914, Senator Bristow asked, "How many of these partners (of Kuhn, Loeb
Company) are American citizens?" WARBURG: "They are all American citizens except Mr.
Kahn. He is a British subject." BRISTOW: "He was at one time a candidate for Parliament, was
he not?" WARBURG: "There was talk about it, it had been suggested and he had it in his
mind."
Paul Warburg also stated to the Committee, "I went to England, where I stayed for two years,
first in the banking and discount firm of Samuel Montague & Company. After that I went to
France, where I stayed in a French bank."
CHAIRMAN: "What French bank was that?" WARBURG: "It is the Russian bank for foreign
trade which has an agency in Paris."
BRISTOW: "I understand you to say that you were a Republican, but when Mr. Theodore
Roosevelt came around, you then became a sympathizer with Mr. Wilson and supported him?"
WARBURG: "Yes." BRISTOW: "While your brother (Felix Warburg) was supporting Taft?"
WARBURG: "Yes." Thus three partners of Kuhn, Loeb Company were supporting three
different candidates for President of the United States. Paul Warburg was supporting Wilson,
396
Felix Warburg was supporting Taft, and Otto Kahn was supporting Theodore Roosevelt. Paul
Warburg explained this curious situation by telling the Committee that they had no influence
over each other’s political beliefs, "as finance and politics don’t mix."
Questions about Warburg’s appointment vanished in a hue and cry with Wilson’s sole
appointment to the Board of Governors, Thomas B. Jones. Reporters had discovered that Jones,
at the time of his appointment, was under indictment by the Attorney General of the United
States. Wilson leaped to the defense of his choice, telling reporters that "The majority of the men
connected with what we have come to call ‘big business’ are honest, incorruptible and patriotic."
Despite Wilson’s protestations, the Senate Banking and Currency Committee scheduled hearings
on the fitness of Thomas D. Jones to be a member of the Board of Governors. Wilson then wrote
a letter to Senator Robert L. Owen, Chairman of that Committee:
White House
June 18, 1914
Dear Senator Owen:
Mr. Jones has always stood for the rights of the people against the
rights of privilege. His connection with the Harvester Company was a
public service, not a private interest. He is the one man of the whole
number who was in a peculiar sense my personal choice.
Sincerely,
Woodrow Wilson
Woodrow Wilson said, "There is no reason to believe that the unfavorable report represents the
attitude of the Senate itself." After several weeks, Thomas D. Jones withdrew his name, and the
country had to do without his services.
The other members of the first Board of Governors were Secretary of the Treasury, William
McAdoo, Wilson’s son-in-law, and President of the Hudson-Manhattan Railroad, a Kuhn, Loeb
Company controlled enterprise, and Comptroller of the Currency John Skelton Williams.
When the Federal Reserve Banks were opened for business on November 16, 1914, Paul Warburg
said, "This date may be considered as the Fourth of July in the economic history of the United
States."
In steamrolling the Federal Reserve Act through the House of Representatives, Congressman
Carter Glass declared on September 30, 1913 on the floor of the House that the interests of the
public would be protected by an advisory council of bankers. "There can be nothing sinister
about its transactions. Meeting with it at least four times a year will be a bankers’ advisory
council representing every regional reserve district in the system. How could we have exercised
greater caution in safeguarding the public interest?
Carter Glass neither then nor later gave any substantiation for his belief that a group of bankers
would protect the interests of the public, nor is there any evidence in the history of the United
397
States that any group of bankers has ever done so. In fact, the Federal Advisory Council proved
to be the "administrative process" which Paul Warburg had inserted into the Federal Reserve
Act to provide just the type of remote but unseen control over the System which he desired.
When he was asked by financial reporter C.W. Barron, just after the Federal Reserve Act was
enacted into law by Congress, whether he approved of the bill as it was finally passed, Warburg
replied, "Well, it hasn’t got quite everything we want, but the lack can be adjusted later by
administrative processes." The council proved to be the ideal vehicle for Warburg’s purposes, as
it has functioned for seventy years in almost complete anonymity, its members and their business
associations, unnoticed by the public.
Senator Robert Owen, chairman of the Senate Banking and Currency Committee, had said, as
quoted in The New York Times, August 3, 1913 before passage of the act:
"The Federal Reserve Act will furnish the bank and industrial and commercial interests with the
discount of qualified commercial paper and thus stabilize our commercial and industrial life. The
Federal Reserve banks are not intended as money making banks, but to serve a great national
purpose of accommodating commerce and businessmen and banks, safeguard a fixed market for
manufactured goods, for agricultural products and for labor. There is no reason why the banks
should be in control of the Federal Reserve system. Stability will make our commerce expand
healthfully in every direction."
Senator Owen’s optimism was doomed by the domination of the Jekyll Island promoters over the
initial composition of the Federal Reserve System. Not only did the Morgan-Kuhn, Loeb alliance
purchase the dominant control of stock in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, with almost
half of the shares owned by the five New York banks under their control, First National Bank,
National City Bank, National Bank of Commerce, Chase National Bank and Hanover National
Bank, but they also persuaded President Woodrow Wilson to appoint one of the Jekyll Island
group, Paul Warburg, to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
Each of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks was to elect a member of the Federal Advisory Council,
which would meet with the Federal Reserve Board of Governors four times a year in Washington,
in order to "advise" the Board on future monetary policy. This seemed to assure absolute
democracy, as each of the twelve "advisors", representing a different region of the United States,
would be expected to speak up for the economic interests of his area, and each of the twelve
members would have an equal vote. The theory may have been admirable in its concept, but the
hard facts of economic life resulted in a quite different picture. The president of a small bank in
St. Louis or Cincinnati, sitting in conference with Paul Warburg and J.P. Morgan to "advise"
them on monetary policy, would be unlikely to contradict two of the most powerful international
financiers in the world, as a scribbled note from either one of them would be sufficient to plunge
his little bank into bankruptcy. In fact, the small banks of the twelve Federal Reserve districts
existed only as satellites of the big New York financial interests, and were completely at their
mercy. Martin Mayer, in The Bankers, points out that "J.P. Morgan maintained correspondent
relationships with many small banks all over the country."30 The big New York banks did not
confine themselves to multi-million dollar deals with other great financial interests, but carried on
many smaller and more routine dealings with their "correspondent" banks across the United
398
States.
Apparently secure in their belief that their activities would never be exposed to the public, the
Morgan-Kuhn, Loeb interests boldly selected the members of the Federal Advisory Council from
their correspondent banks and from banks in which they owned stock. No one in the financial
community seemed to notice, as nothing was said about it during seventy years of the Federal
Reserve System’s operation.
To avoid any suspicion that New York interests might control the Federal Advisory Council, its
first president, elected in 1914 by the other members, was J.B. Forgan, president of the First
National Bank of Chicago. Rand McNally Bankers Directory for 1914 lists the principal
correspondents of the large banks. The principal correspondent bank of the Baker-Morgan
controlled First National Bank of New York is listed as the First National Bank of Chicago. The
principal correspondent listed by the First National Bank of Chicago is the Bank of Manhattan
in New York, controlled by Jacob Schiff and Paul Warburg of Kuhn, Loeb Company. James B.
Forgan also was listed as a director of Equitable Life Insurance Company, also controlled by
Morgan. However, the relationship between First National Bank of Chicago and these New York
banks was even closer than these listings indicate.
On page 701 of The Growth of Chicago Banks by F. Cyril James, we find mention of "the First
National Bank of Chicago’s profitable connection with the Morgan interests. A goodwill
ambassador was hastily sent to New York to invite George F. Baker to become a director of the
First National Bank of Chicago."31 (J.B. Forgan to Ream, January 7, 1903.) In effect, Baker and
Morgan had personally chosen the first president of the Federal Advisory Council.
James B. Forgan (1852-1924) also shows the obligatory "London Connection" in the operation of
the Federal Reserve System. Born in St. Andrew’s, Scotland, he began his banking career there
with the Royal Bank of Scotland, a correspondent of the Bank of England. He came to Canada
for the Bank of British North America, worked for the Bank of Nova Scotia, which sent him to
Chicago in the 1880’s, and by 1900 he had become president of the First National Bank of
Chicago. He served for six years as president of the Federal Advisory Council, and when he left
the council, he was replaced by Frank O. Wetmore, who had also replaced him as president of the
First National Bank of Chicago when Forgan was named chairman of the board.
Representing the New York Federal Reserve district on the first Federal Advisory Council was
J.P. Morgan. He was named chairman of the Executive Committee. Thus, Paul Warburg and J.P.
Morgan sat in conference at the meetings of the Federal Reserve Board during the first four years
of its operation, surrounded by the other Governors and members of the council, who could
hardly have been unaware that their futures would be guided by these two powerful bankers.
Another member of the Federal Advisory Council in 1914 was Levi L. Rue, representing the
Philadelphia district. Rue was president of the Philadelphia National Bank. Rand McNally
Bankers Directory of 1914 listed as principal correspondent of the First National Bank of New
York, the Philadelphia National Bank. First National Bank of Chicago also listed Philadelphia
National Bank as its principal correspondent in Philadelphia. The other members of the Federal
Advisory Council included Daniel S. Wing, president of the First National Bank of Boston, W.S.
Rowe, president of the First National Bank of Cincinnati, and C.T. Jaffray, president of the First
National Bank of Minneapolis. These were all correspondent banks of the New York "big five"
banks who controlled the money market in the United States.
399
Jaffray had an even closer connection with the Baker-Morgan interests. In 1908, to reinvest the
large annual dividends from their First National Bank of New York stock, Baker and Morgan set
up a holding company, First Security Corporation, which bought 500 shares of the First National
Bank of Minneapolis. Thus Jaffray was little more than a wage-earning employee of Baker and
Morgan, although he had been "selected" by stockholders of the Federal Reserve Bank of
Minneapolis to represent their interests. First Security Corporation also owned 50,000 shares of
Chase National Bank, 5400 shares of National Bank of Commerce, 2500 shares of Bankers Trust,
928 shares of Liberty National Bank, the bank of which Henry P. Davison had been president
when he was tapped to join the J.P. Morgan firm, and shares of New York Trust, Atlantic Trust
and Brooklyn Trust. First Security concentrated on bank stocks which rapidly appreciated in
value, and paid handsome annual dividends. In 1927, it earned five million dollars, but paid the
shareholders eight million, taking the rest from its surplus.
Another member of the initial Federal Advisory Council was E.F. Swinney, president of the First
National Bank of Kansas City. He was also a director of Southern Railway, and lists himself in
Who’s Who as "independent in politics".
Archibald Kains represented the San Francisco district on the Federal Advisory Council,
although he maintained his office in New York, as president of the American Foreign Banking
Corporation.
After serving as a Governor of the Federal Reserve Board from 1914-1918, Paul Warburg did not
request another term. However, he was not ready to sever his connection with the Federal
Reserve System which he had done so much to set up and put into operation. J.P. Morgan
obligingly gave up his seat on the Federal Advisory Council, and for the next ten years, Paul
Warburg continued to represent the Federal Reserve district of New York on the Council. He was
vice president of the council 1922-25, and president 1926-27. Thus Warburg remained the
dominant presence at Federal Reserve Board meetings throughout the 1920s, when the European
central banks were planning the great contraction of credit which precipitated the Crash of 1929
and the Great Depression. Although most of the Federal Advisory Council’s "advice" to the
Board of Governors has never been reported, on rare instances a few glimpses into its
deliberations were afforded by brief items in The New York Times. On November 21, 1916, The
Times reported that the Federal Advisory Council had met in Washington for its quarterly
conference.
"There was talk about absorbing Europe’s extension of credit to South America and other
countries. Federal Reserve officials said that to maintain a position as one of the world’s bankers
the United States must expect to be called upon to render a good deal of the service performed
largely by England in the past, in extending short term credits necessary in the production and
transportation of goods of all kinds in the world’s trade, and that acceptances in foreign trade
require lower discounts and the freest and most reliable gold markets." (The First World War
was at its zenith in 1916.)
In addition to his service on the Board of Governors and the Federal Advisory Council, Paul
400
Warburg continued to address bankers’ groups about the monetary policies they were expected to
follow. On October 22, 1915, he addressed the Twin City Bankers Club, St. Paul, Minnesota
during which speech he stated,
"It is to your interest to see the Federal Reserve banks as strong as they possibly can be. It
staggers the imagination to think what the future may have in store for the development of
American banking. With Europe’s foremost powers limited to their own field, with the United
States turned into a creditor nation for all the world, the boundaries of the field that lies open for
us are determined only by our power of safe expansion. The scope of our banking future will
ultimately be limited by the amount of gold that we can muster as the foundation of our banking
and credit structure."
The composition of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Reserve Advisory
Council, from its initial membership to the present day, shows links to the Jekyll Island
conference and the London banking community which offers incontrovertible evidence,
acceptable in any court of law, that there was a plan to gain control of the money and credit of
the people of the United States, and to use it for the profit of the architects. Old Jekyll Island
hands were Frank Vanderlip, president of the National City Bank, which bought a large portion
of the shares of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in 1914; Paul Warburg of Kuhn, Loeb
Company; Henry P. Davison, J.P. Morgan’s righthand man, and director of the First National
Bank of New York and the National Bank of Commerce, which took a large portion of Federal
Reserve Bank of New York stock; and Benjamin Strong, also known as a Morgan lieutenant, who
served as Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York during the 1920’s.*
The selection of the regional members of the Federal Advisory Council from the list of bankers
who worked most closely with the "big five" banks of New York, and who were their principal
correspondent banks, proves that the much-touted "regional safeguarding of the public interest"
by Carter Glass and other Washington proponents of the Federal Reserve Act was from its very
inception a deliberate deception. The fact that for seventy years this council was able to meet
with the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and to "advise" the Governors on decisions of
monetary policy which affected the daily lives of every person in the United States, without the
public being aware of their existence, demonstrates that the planners of the central bank
operation knew exactly how to achieve their objectives through "administrative processes" of
which the public would remain ignorant. The claim that the "advice" of the council members is
not binding on the Governors or that it carries no weight is to claim that four times a year, twelve
of the most influential bankers in the United States take time from their work to travel to
Washington to meet with the Federal Reserve Board merely to drink coffee and exchange
pleasantries. It is a claim which anyone familiar with the workings of the business community
will find impossible to take seriously. In 1914, it was a four-day trip each way for bankers from
the Far West to come to Washington for a council meeting with the Federal Reserve Board. These
men had extensive business interests which demanded their time. J.P. Morgan was a director of
sixty-three corporations which held annual meetings, and could hardly be expected to travel to
401
Washington to attend meetings of the Federal Reserve Board if his advice was to be considered of
no importance.
The success of the Federal Reserve Conspiracy will raise many questions in the minds of readers
who are unfamiliar with the history of the United States and finance capital. How could the
Kuhn, Loeb-Morgan alliance, powerful though it might be, believe that it would be capable, first,
of devising a plan which would bring the entire money and credit of the people of the United
States into their hands, and second, of getting such a plan enacted into law?
The capability of devising and enacting the "National Reserve Plan", as the immediate result of
the Jekyll Island expedition was called, was easily within the powers of the Kuhn, Loeb-Morgan
alliance, according to the following from McClure’s Magazine, August 1911, "The Seven Men"
by John Moody:
"Seven men in Wall Street now control a great share of the fundamental industry and resources
of the United States. Three of the seven men, J.P. Morgan, James J. Hill, and George F. Baker,
head of the First National Bank of New York belong to the so-called Morgan group; four of them,
John D. and William Rockefeller, James Stillman, head of the National City Bank, and Jacob H.
Schiff of the private banking firm of Kuhn, Loeb Company, to the so-called Standard Oil City
Bank group... the central machine of capital extends its control over the United States... The
process is not only economically logical; it is now practically automatic."32
Thus we see that the 1910 plot to seize control of the money and credit of the people of the United
States was planned by men who already controlled most of the country’s resources. It seemed to
John Moody "practically automatic" that they should continue with their operations.
What John Moody did not know, or did not tell his readers, was that the most powerful men in
the United States were themselves answerable to another power, a foreign power, and a power
which had been steadfastly seeking to extend its control over the young republic of the United
States since its very inception. This power was the financial power of England, centered in the
London Branch of the House of Rothschild. The fact was that in 1910, the United States was for
all practical purposes being ruled from England, and so it is today. The ten largest bank holding
companies in the United States are firmly in the hands of certain banking houses, all of which
have branches in London. They are J.P. Morgan Company, Brown Brothers Harriman, Warburg,
Kuhn Loeb and J. Henry Schroder. All of them maintain close relationships with the House of
Rothschild, principally through the Rothschild control of international money markets through
its manipulation of the price of gold. Each day, the world price of gold is set in the London office
of N.M. Rothschild and Company.
Although these firms are ostensibly American firms, which merely maintain branches in London,
the fact is that these banking houses actually take their direction from London. Their history is a
fascinating one, and unknown to the American public, originating as it did in the international
traffic in gold, slaves, diamonds, and other contraband. There are no moral considerations in any
business decision made by these firms. They are interested solely in money and power.
Tourists today gape at the magnificent mansions of the very rich in Newport, Rhode Island,
without realizing that not only do these "cottages" stand as a memorial to the baronial desires of
our Victorian millionaires, but that their erection in Newport represented a nostalgic
402
memorialization of the great American fortunes, which had their beginnings in Newport when it
was the capital of the slave trade.
The slave trade for centuries had its headquarters in Venice, until Seventeenth Century Britain,
the new master of the seas, used its control of the oceans to gain a monopoly. As the American
colonies were settled, its fiercely independent people, most of whom did not want slaves, found to
their surprise that slaves were being sent to our ports in great numbers.
For many years, Newport was the capital of this unsavory trade. William Ellery, the Collector of
the Port of Newport, said in 1791:
"...an Ethiopian cld as soon change his skin as a Newport merchant cld be induced to change so
lucrative a trade.... for the slow profits of any manufactory."
John Quincy Adams remarked in his Diary, page 459, "Newport’s former prosperity was chiefly
owing to its extensive employment in the African slave trade."
The pre-eminence of J.P. Morgan and the Brown firm in American finance can be dated to the
development of Baltimore as the nineteenth century capital of the slave trade. Both of these firms
originated in Baltimore, opened branches in London, came under the aegis of the House of
Rothschild, and returned to the United States to open branches in New York and to become the
dominant power, not only in finance, but also in government. In recent years, key posts such as
Secretary of Defense have been held by Robert Lovett, partner of Brown Brothers Harriman, and
Thomas S. Gates, partner of Drexel and Company, a J.P. Morgan sub-sidiary firm. The present
Vice President, George Bush, is the son of Prescott Bush, a partner of Brown Brothers Harriman,
for many years the senator from Connecticut, and the financial organizer of Columbia
Broadcasting System of which he also was a director for many years.
To understand why these firms operate as they do, it is necessary to give a brief history of their
origins. Few Americans know that J.P. Morgan Company began as George Peabody and
Company. George Peabody (1795-1869), born at South Danvers, Massachusetts, began business
in Georgetown, D.C. in 1814 as Peabody, Riggs and Company, dealing in wholesale dry goods,
and in operating the Georgetown Slave Market. In 1815, to be closer to their source of supply,
they moved to Baltimore, where they operated as Peabody and Riggs, from 1815 to 1835.
Peabody found himself increasingly involved with business originating from London, and in
1835, he established the firm of George Peabody and Company in London. He had excellent
entree in London business through another Baltimore firm established in Liverpool, the Brown
Brothers. Alexander Brown came to Baltimore in 1801, and established what is now known as the
oldest banking house in the United States, still operating as Brown Brothers Harriman of New
York; Brown, Shipley and Company of England; and Alex Brown and Son of Baltimore. The
behind the scenes power wielded by this firm is indicated by the fact that Sir Montagu Norman,
Governor of the Bank of England for many years, was a partner of Brown, Shipley and
Company.* Considered the single most influential banker in the world, Sir Montagu Norman was
organizer of "informal talks" between heads of central banks in 1927, which led directly to the
Great Stockmarket Crash of 1929.
Soon after he arrived in London, George Peabody was surprised to be summoned to an audience
with the gruff Baron Nathan Mayer Rothschild. Without mincing words, Rothschild revealed to
Peabody, that much of the London aristocracy openly disliked Rothschild and refused his
403
invitations. He proposed that Peabody, a man of modest means, be established as a lavish host
whose entertainments would soon be the talk of London. Rothschild would, of course, pay all the
bills. Peabody accepted the offer, and soon became known as the most popular host in London.
His annual Fourth of July dinner, celebrating American Independence, became extremely
popular with the English aristocracy, many of whom, while drinking Peabody’s wine, regaled
each other with jokes about Rothschild’s crudities and bad manners, without realizing that every
drop they drank had been paid for by Rothschild.
It is hardly surprising that the most popular host in London would also become a very successful
businessman, particularly with the House of Rothschild supporting him behind the scenes.
Peabody often operated with a capital of 500,000 pounds on hand, and became very astute in his
buying and selling on both sides of the Atlantic. His American agent was the Boston firm of
Beebe, Morgan and Company, headed by Junius S. Morgan, father of John Pierpont Morgan.
Peabody, who never married, had no one to succeed him, and he was very favorably impressed by
the tall, handsome Junius Morgan. He persuaded Morgan to join him in London as a partner in
George Peabody and Company in 1854. In 1860, John Pierpont Morgan had been taken on as an
apprentice by the firm of Duncan, Sherman in New York. He was not very attentive to business,
and in 1864, Morgan’s father was outraged when Duncan, Sherman refused to make his son a
partner. He promptly extended an arrangement whereby one of the chief employees of Duncan,
Sherman, Charles H. Dabney, was persuaded to join John Pierpont Morgan in a new firm,
Dabney, Morgan and Company. Bankers Magazine, December, 1864, noted that Peabody had
withdrawn his account from Duncan, Sherman, and that other firms were expected to do so. The
Peabody account, of course, went to Dabney, Morgan Company.
John Pierpont Morgan was born in 1837, during the first money panic in the United States.
Significantly, it had been caused by the House of Rothschild, with whom Morgan was later to
become associated.
In 1836, President Andrew Jackson, infuriated by the tactics of the bankers who were attempting
to persuade him to renew the charter of the Second Bank of the United States, said, "You are a
den of vipers. I intend to rout you out and by the Eternal God I will rout you out. If the people
only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution
before morning."
Although Nicholas Biddle was President of the Bank of the United States, it was well known that
Baron James de Rothschild of Paris was the principal investor in this central bank. Although
Jackson had vetoed the renewal of the charter of the Bank of the United States, he probably was
unaware that a few months earlier, in 1835, the House of Rothschild had cemented a relationship
with the United States Government by superseding the firm of Baring as financial agent of the
Department of State on January 1, 1835.
Henry Clews, the famous banker, in his book, Twenty-eight Years in Wall Street33, states that the
Panic of 1837 was engineered because the charter of the Second Bank of the United States had
run out in 1836. Not only did President Jackson promptly withdraw government funds from the
Second Bank of the United States, but he deposited these funds, $10 million, in state banks. The
immediate result, Clews tells us, is that the country began to enjoy great prosperity. This sudden
flow of cash caused an immediate expansion of the national economy, and the government paid
off the entire national debt, leaving a surplus of $50 million in the Treasury.
The European financiers had the answer to this situation. Clews further states, "The Panic of
1837 was aggravated by the Bank of England when it in one day threw out all the paper
404
connected with the United States."
The Bank of England, of course, was synonymous with the name of Baron Nathan Mayer
Rothschild. Why did the Bank of England in one day "throw out" all paper connected with the
United States, that is, refuse to accept or discount any securities, bonds or other financial paper
based in the United States? The purpose of this action was to create an immediate financial panic
in the United States, cause a complete contraction of credit, halt further issues of stocks and
bonds, and ruin those seeking to turn United States securities into cash. In this atmosphere of
financial panic, John Pierpont Morgan came into the world. His grandmother, Joseph Morgan,
was a well to do farmer who owned 106 acres in Hartford, Connecticut. He later opened the City
Hotel, and the Exchange Coffee Shop, and in 1819, was one of the founders of the Aetna
Insurance Company.
George Peabody found that he had chosen well in selecting Junius S. Morgan as his successor.
Morgan agreed to continue the sub rosa relationship with N.M. Rothschild Company, and soon
expanded the firm’s activities by shipping large quantities of railroad iron to the United States. It
was Peabody iron which was the foundation for much of American railroad tracks from 1860 to
1890. In 1864, content to retire and leave his firm in the hands of Morgan, Peabody allowed the
name to be changed to Junius S. Morgan Company. The Morgan firm then and since has always
been directed from London. John Pierpont Morgan spent much of his time at his magnificent
London mansion, Prince’s Gate.
One of the high water marks of the successful Rothschild-Peabody Morgan business venture was
the Panic of 1857. It had been twenty years since the Panic of 1837: its lessons had been forgotten
by hordes of eager investors who were anxious to invest the profits of a developing America. It
was time to fleece them again. The stock market operates like a wave washing up on the beach. It
sweeps with it many minuscule creatures who derive all of their life support from the oxygen and
water of the wave. They coast along at the crest of the "Tide of Prosperity". Suddenly the wave,
having reached the high water mark on the beach, recedes, leaving all of the creatures gasping on
the sand. Another wave may come in time to save them, but in all likelihood it will not come as
far, and some of the sea creatures are doomed. In the same manner, waves of prosperity, fed by
newly created money, through an artificial contraction of credit, recedes, leaving those it had
borne high to gasp and die without hope of salvation.
Corsair, the Life of J.P. Morgan,34 tells us that the Panic of 1857 was caused by the collapse of
the grain market and by the sudden collapse of Ohio Life and Trust, for a loss of five million
dollars. With this collapse nine hundred other American companies failed. Significantly, one not
only survived, but prospered from the crash. In Corsair, we learn that the Bank of England lent
George Peabody and Company five million pounds during the panic of 1857. Winkler, in Morgan
the Magnificent35 says that the Bank of England advanced Peabody one million pounds, an
enormous sum at that time, and the equivalent of one hundred million dollars today, to save the
firm. However, no other firm received such beneficence during this Panic. The reason is revealed
by Matthew Josephson, in The Robber Barons. He says on page 60:
"For such qualities of conservatism and purity, George Peabody and Company, the old tree out
of
which the House of Morgan grew, was famous. In the panic of 1857, when depreciated securities
had been thrown on the market by distressed investors in America, Peabody and the elder
405
Morgan, being in possession of cash, had purchased such bonds as possessed real value freely,
and then resold them at a large advance when sanity was restored."36
Thus, from a number of biographies of Morgan, the story can be pieced together. After the panic
had been engineered, one firm came into the market with one million pounds in cash, purchased
securities from distressed investors at panic prices, and later resold them at an enormous profit.
That firm was the Morgan firm, and behind it was the clever maneuvering of Baron Nathan
Mayer Rothschild. The association remained secret from the most knowledgeable financial minds
in London and New York, although Morgan occasionally appeared as the financial agent in a
Rothschild operation. As the Morgan firm grew rapidly during the late nineteenth century, until
it dominated the finances of the nation, many observers were puzzled that the Rothschilds
seemed so little interested in profiting by investing in the rapidly advancing American economy.
John Moody notes, in The Masters of Capital, page 27, "The Rothschilds were content to remain
a close ally of Morgan... as far as the American field was concerned.’37 Secrecy was more
profitable than valor. The reason that the European Rothschilds preferred to operate
anonymously in the United States behind the facade of J.P. Morgan and Company is explained
by George Wheeler, in Pierpont Morgan and Friends, the Anatomy of a Myth, page 17:
"But there were steps being taken even now to bring him out of the financial backwaters--and
they were not being taken by Pierpont Morgan himself. The first suggestion of his name for a role
in the recharging of the reserve originated with the London branch of the House of Rothschild,
Belmont’s employers."38
Wheeler goes on to explain that a considerable anti-Rothschild movement had developed in
Europe and the United States which focused on the banking activities of the Rothschild family.
Even though they had a registered agent in the United States, August Schoenberg, who had
changed his name to Belmont when he came to the United States as the representative of the
Rothschilds in 1837, it was extremely advantageous to them to have an American representative
who was not known as a Rothschild agent.
Although the London house of Junius S. Morgan and Company continued to be the dominant
branch of the Morgan enterprises, with the death of the senior Morgan in 1890 in a carriage
accident on the Riviera, John Pierpont Morgan became the head of the firm. After operating as
the American representative of the London firm from 1864-1871 as Dabney Morgan Company,
Morgan took on a new partner in 1871, Anthony Drexel of Philadelphia and operated as Drexel
Morgan and Company until 1895. Drexel died in that year, and Morgan changed the name of the
American branch to J.P. Morgan and Company.
LaRouche39 tells us that on February 5, 1891, a secret association known as the Round Table
Group was formed in London by Cecil Rhodes, his banker, Lord Rothschild, the Rothschild inlaw,
Lord Rosebery, and Lord Curzon. He states that in the United States the Round Table was
represented by the Morgan group. Dr. Carrol Quigley refers to this group as "The British-
American Secret Society" in Tragedy and Hope, stating that "The chief backbone of this
organization grew up along the already existing financial cooperation running from the Morgan
Bank in New York to a group of international financiers in London led by Lazard Brothers (in
406
1901)."40
William Guy Carr, in Pawns In The Game states that, "In 1899, J.P. Morgan and Drexel went to
England to attend the International Bankers Convention. When they returned, J.P. Morgan had
been appointed head representative of the Rothschild interests in the United States. As the result
of the London Conference, J.P. Morgan and Company of New York, Drexel and Company of
Philadelphia, Grenfell and Company of London, and Morgan Harjes Cie of Paris, M.M.
Warburg Company of Germany and America, and the House of Rothschild were all affiliated."41
Apparently unaware of the Peabody connection with the Rothschilds and the fact that the
Morgans had always been affiliated with the House of Rothschild, Carr supposed that he had
uncovered this relationship as of 1899, when in fact it went back to 1835.*
After World War I, the Round Table became known as the Council on Foreign Relations in the
United States, and the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London. The leading
government officials of both England and the United States were chosen from its members. In the
1960s, as growing attention centered on the surreptitious governmental activities of the Council
on Foreign Relations, subsidiary groups, known as the Trilateral Commission and the
Bilderbergers, representing the identical financial interests, began operations, with the more
important officials, such as Robert Roosa, being members of all three groups.
July 30, 1930 McFadden Basis of Control of Economic Conditions. This control of the world
business structure and of human happiness and progress by a small group is a matter of the most
intense public interest. In analyzing it, we must begin with the internal group which centers itself
around J.P. Morgan Company. Never before had there been such a powerful centralized control
over finance, industrial production, credit and wages as is at this time vested in the Morgan
group... The Morgan control of the Federal Reserve System is exercised through control of the
management of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
George F. Peabody History of the Great American Fortunes, Gustavus Myers, Mod. Lib. 537,
notes that J.P. Morgan’s father, Junius S. Morgan, had become a partner of George Peabody in
the banking business. "When the Civil War came on, George Peabody and Company were
appointed the financial representatives in England of the U.S. Government.... with this
appointment their wealth suddenly began to pile up; where hitherto they had amassed the riches
by stages not remarkably rapid, they now added many millions within a very few years."
According to writers of the day, the methods of George Peabody & Company were not only
unreasonable but double treason, in that, while in the act of giving inside aid to the enemy,
George Peabody & Company were the potentiaries of the U.S. Government and were being well
paid to advance its interests. "Springfield Republic", 1866: "For all who know anything on the
subject know very well that Peabody and his partners gave us no faith and no help in our
struggle for national existence. They participated to the fullest in the common English distrust of
our cause and our success, and talked and acted for the South rather than for our nation. No
individuals contributed so much to flooding our money markets and weakening financial
confidence in our nationality than George Peabody & Company, and none made more money by
the operation. All the money that Mr. Peabody is giving away so lavishly among our institutions
of learning was gained by the speculations of his house in our misfortunes." Also, New York
Times, Oct. 31, 1866: Reconstruction Carpetbaggers Money Fund. Lightning over the Treasury
Building, John Elson, Meador Publishing Co., Boston 41, pg. 53, "The Bank of England with its
subsidiary banks in America (under the domination of J.P. Morgan) the Bank of France, and the
Reichsbank of Germany, composed an interlocking and cooperative banking system, the main
objective of which was the exploitation of the people."
407
According to William Guy Carr, in Pawns In The Game,42 the initial meeting of these ex officio
planners took place in Mayer Amschel Bauer’s Goldsmith Shop in Frankfurt in 1773. Bauer, who
adopted the name of "Rothschild" or Red Shield, from the red shield which he hung over his
door to advertise his business (the red shield today is the official coat of arms of the City of
Frankfurt), (See Cover) "was only thirty years of age when he invited twelve other wealthy and
influential men to meet him in Frankfurt. His purpose was to convince them that if they agreed to
pool their resources they could then finance and control the World Revolutionary Movement and
use it as their Manual of Action to win ultimate control of the wealth, natural resources, and
manpower of the entire world. This agreement reached, Mayer unfolded his revolutionary plan.
The project would be backed by all the power that could be purchased with their pooled
resources. By clever manipulation of their combined wealth it would be possible to create such
adverse economic conditions that the masses would be reduced to a state bordering on starvation
by unemployment... Their paid propagandists would arouse feelings of hatred and revenge
against the ruling classes by exposing all real and alleged cases of extravagance, licentious
conduct, injustice, oppression, and persecution. They would also invent infamies to bring into
disrepute others who might, if left alone, interfere with their overall plans... Rothschild turned to
a manuscript and proceeded to read a carefully prepared plan of action. 1. He argued that LAW
was FORCE only in disguise. He reasoned it was logical to conclude ‘By the laws of nature right
lies in force.’ 2. Political freedom is an idea, not a fact. In order to usurp political power all that
was necessary was to preach ‘Liberalism’ so that the electorate, for the sake of an idea, would
yield some of their power and prerogatives which the plotters could then gather into their own
hands. 3. The speaker asserted that the Power of Gold had usurped the power of Liberal rulers....
He pointed out that it was immaterial to the success of his plan whether the established
governments were destroyed by external or internal foes because the victor had to of necessity ask
the aid of ‘Capital’ which ‘Is entirely in our hands’. 4. He argued that the use of any and all
means to reach their final goal was justified on the grounds that the ruler who governed by the
moral code was not a skilled politician because he left himself vulnerable and in an unstable
position. 5. He asserted that ‘Our right lies in force. The word RIGHT is an abstract thought and
proves nothing. I find a new RIGHT... to attack by the Right of the Strong, to reconstruct all
existing institutions, and to become the sovereign Lord of all those who left to us the Rights to
their powers by laying them down to us in their liberalism. 6. The power of our resources must
remain invisible until the very moment when it has gained such strength that no cunning or force
can undermine it. He went on to outline twenty-five points. Number 8 dealt with the use of
alcoholic liquors, drugs, moral corruption, and all vice to systematically corrupt youth of all
nations. 9. They had the right to seize property by any means, and without hesitation, if by doing
so they secured submission and sovereignty. 10. We were the first to put the slogans Liberty,
Equality, and Fraternity into the mouths of the masses, which set up a new aristocracy. The
qualification for this aristocracy is WEALTH which is dependent on us. 11. Wars should be
directed so that the nations engaged on both sides should be further in our debt. 12. Candidates
for public office should be servile and obedient to our commands, so that they may readily be
used. 13. Propaganda--their combined wealth would control all outlets of public information. 14.
Panics and financial depressions would ultimately result in World Government, a new order of
one world government."
The Rothschild family has played a crucial role in international finance for two centuries, as
Frederick Morton, in The Rothschilds writes:
"For the last one hundred and fifty years the history of the House of Rothschild has been to an
amazing extent the backstage history of Western Europe."38 (Preface)... Because of their success
in making loans not to individuals, but to nations, they reaped huge profits, although as Morton
408
writes, p. 36, "Someone once said that the wealth of Rothschild consists of the bankruptcy of
nations."43
E.C. Knuth writes, in The Empire of the City, "The fact that the House of Rothschild made its
money in the great crashes of history and the great wars of history, the very periods when others
lost their money, is beyond question."44
The Great Soviet Encyclopaedia, states, "The clearest example of a personal linkup (international
directorates) on a Western European scale is the Rothschild family. The London and Paris
branches of the Rothschilds are bound not just by family ties but also by personal link-ups in
jointly controlled companies."45 The encyclopaedia further described these companies as
international monopolies.
The sire of the family, Mayer Amschel Rothschild, established a small business as a coin dealer in
Frankfurt in 1743. Although previously known as Bauer*, he advertised his profession by putting
up a sign depicting an eagle on a red shield, an adaptation of the coat of arms of the City of
Frankfurt, to which he added five golden arrows extending from the talons, signifying his five
sons. Because of this sign, he took the name ‘Rothschild" or "Red Shield". When the Elector of
Hesse earned a fortune by renting Hessian mercenaries to the British to put down the rebellion in
the American colonies, Rothschild was entrusted with this money to invest. He made an excellent
profit both for himself and the Elector, and attracted other accounts. In 1785 he moved to a
larger house, 148 Judengasse, a five story house known as "The Green Shield" which he shared
with the Schiff family.
The five sons established branches in the principal cities of Europe, the most successful being
James in Paris and Nathan Mayer in London. Ignatius Balla in The Romance of the
Rothschilds46 tells us how the London Rothschild established his fortune. He went to Waterloo,
where the fate of Europe hung in the balance, saw that Napoleon was losing the battle, and
rushed back to Brussels. At Ostend, he tried to hire a boat to England, but because of a raging
storm, no one was willing to go out. Rothschild offered 500 francs, then 700, and finally 1,000
francs for a boat. One sailor said, "I will take you for 2000 francs; then at least my widow will
have something if we are drowned." Despite the storm, they crossed the Channel.
The next morning, Rothschild was at his usual post in the London Exchange. Everyone noticed
how pale and exhausted he looked. Suddenly, he started selling, dumping large quantities of
securities. Panic immediately swept the Exchange. Rothschild is selling; he knows we have lost
the Battle of Waterloo. Rothschild and all of his known agents continued to throw securities onto
the market. Balla says, "Nothing could arrest the disaster. At the same time he was quietly buying
up all securities by means of secret agents whom no one knew. In a single day, he had gained
nearly a million sterling, giving rise to the saying, ‘The Allies won the Battle of Waterloo, but it
was really Rothschild who won.’"*
In The Profits of War, Richard Lewinsohn says, "Rothschild’s war profits from the Napoleonic
Wars financed their later stock speculations. Under Metternich, Austria after long hesitation,
finally agreed to accept financial direction from the House of Rothschild."The New York Times,
April 1, 1915 reported that in 1914, Baron Nathan Mayer de Rothschild went to court to suppress
Ignatius Balla’s book on the grounds that the Waterloo story about his grandfather was untrue
and libelous. The court ruled that the story was true, dismissed Rothschild’s suit, and ordered
him to pay all costs. The New York Times noted in this story that "The total Rothschild wealth
has been estimated at $2 billion." A previous story in The New York Times (May 27, 1905) noted
409
that Baron Alphonse de Rothschild, head of the French house of Rothschild, possessed $60
million in American securities in his fortune, although the Rothschilds reputedly were not active
in the American field. This explains why their agent, J.P. Morgan, had only $19 million in
securities in his estate when he died in 1913, and securities handled by Morgan were actually
owned by his employer, Rothschild."
After the success of his Waterloo exploit, Nathan Mayer Rothschild gained control of the Bank of
England through his near monopoly of "Consols" and other shares. Several "central" banks, or
banks which had the power to issue currency, had been started in Europe: The Bank of Sweden,
in 1656, which began to issue notes in 1661, the earliest being the Bank of Amsterdam, which
financed Oliver Cromwell’s seizure of power in England in 1649, ostensibly because of religious
differences. Cromwell died in 1657 and the throne of England was re-established when Charles II
was crowned in 1660. He died in 1685. In 1689, the same group of bankers regained power in
England by putting King William of Orange on the throne. He soon repaid his backers by
ordering the British Treasury to borrow 1,250,000 pounds from these bankers. He also issued
them a Royal Charter for the Bank of England, which permitted them to consolidate the National
debt (which had just been created by this loan) and to secure payments of interest and principal
by direct taxation of the people. The Charter forbade private goldsmiths to store gold and to issue
receipts, which gave the stockholders of the Bank of England a money monopoly. The goldsmiths
also were required to store their gold in the Bank of England vaults. Not only had their privilege
of issuing circulating medium been taken away by government decree, but their fortunes were
now turned over to those who had supplanted them.*
In his "Cantos", 46; 27, Ezra Pound refers to the unique privileges which William Paterson
advertised in his prospectus for the Charter of the Bank of England:
"Said Paterson
Hath benefit of interest on all
the moneys which it, the bank, creates out of nothing."
The "nothing" which is referred to, of course, is the bookkeeping operation of the bank, which
"creates" money by entering a notation that it has "lent" you one thousand dollars, money which
did not exist until the bank made the entry.
By 1698, the British Treasury owed 16 million pounds sterling to the Bank of England. By 1815,
principally due to the compounding of interest, the debt had risen to 885 million pounds sterling.
Some of this increase was due to the wars which had flourished during that period, including the
Napoleonic Wars and the wars which England had fought to retain its American Colony.
In the United States, after the stockholders of the Federal
Reserve System had consolidated their power in 1934, our
government also issued orders that private citizens could not
store or hold gold.
William Paterson (1658-1719) himself benefited little from "the
moneys which the bank creates out of nothing", as he withdrew,
after a policy disagreement, from the Bank of England a year
410
after it was founded. A later William Paterson became one of the
framers of the United States Constitution, while the name lingers
on, like the pernicious central bank itself.
Paterson had found himself unable to work with the Bank of
England’s stockholders. Many of them remained anonymous, but an
early description of the Bank of England stated it was "A society
of about 1330 persons, including the King and Queen of England,
who had 10,000 pounds of stock, the Duke of Leeds, Duke of
Devonshire, Earl of Pembroke, and the Earl of Bradford."
Because of his success in his speculations, Baron Nathan Mayer de
Rothschild, as he now called himself, reigned as the supreme
financial power in London. He arrogantly exclaimed, during a
party in his mansion, "I care not what puppet is placed upon the
throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets.
The man that controls Britain’s money supply controls the British
Empire, and I control the British money supply."
His brother James in Paris had also achieved dominance in French
finance. In Baron Edmond de Rothschild, David Druck writes,
"(James) Rothschild’s wealth had reached the 600 million mark.
Only one man in France possessed more. That was the King, whose
wealth was 800 million. The aggregate wealth of all the bankers
in France was 150 million less than that of James Rothschild.
This naturally gave him untold powers, even to the extent of
unseating governments whenever he chose to do so. It is well
known, for example, that he overthrew the Cabinet of Prime
Minister Thiers."
The expansion of Germany under Bismarck was accompanied by his
dependence on Samuel Bleichroder, Court Bankers of the Prussian
Emperor, who had been known as an agent of the Rothschilds since
1828. The later Chancellor of Germany, Dr. von Bethmann Hollweg,
was the son of Moritz Bethmann of Frankfurt, who had intermarried
with the Rothschilds. Emperor Wilhelm I also relied heavily on
Bischoffsheim, Goldschmidt, and Sir Ernest Cassel of Frankfurt,
who emigrated to England and became personal banker to the Prince
of Wales, later Edward VII. Cassel’s daughter married Lord
Mountbatten, giving the family a direct relationship to the
present British Crown.
Paul Emden in Behind The Throne says,
"Edward’s preparation for his metier was quite different from
that of his mother, hence he ‘ruled’ less than she did.
Gratefully, he retained around him men who had been with him in
the age of the building of the Baghdad Railway...there were added
411
to the advisory staff Leopold and Alfred de Rothschild, various
members of the Sassoon family, and above all his private
financial advisor Sir Ernest Cassel."50
The enormous fortune which Cassel made in a relatively short time
gave him an immense power which he never misused. He amalgamated
the firm of Vickers Sons with the Naval Construction Company and
the Maxim-Nordenfeldt Guns and Ammunition Company, a fusion from
which there arose the worldwide firm of Vickers Sons and Maxim.
On an entirely different capacity from Cassel were businessmen
like the Rothschilds. The firm was run on democratic principles,
and the various partners all had to be members of the family.
With great hospitality and in a princely manner they led the
lives of grand seigneurs, and it was natural that Edward VII
should find them congenial. Thanks to their international family
relationships and still more extended business connections, they
knew the whole world, were well informed about everybody, and had
reliable knowledge of matters which did not appear on the
surface. This combination of finance and politics had been a
trademark of the Rothschilds from the very beginning. The House
of Rothschild always knew more than could be found in the papers
and even more than could be read in the reports which arrived at
the Foreign Office. In other countries also the relations of the
Rothschilds extended behind the throne. Not until numerous
diplomatic publications appeared in the years after the war did a
wider public learn how strongly Alfred de Rothschild’s hand
affected the politics of Central Europe during the twenty years
before the war (World War I)."
With the control of the money came the control of the news media.
Kent Cooper, head of the Associated Press, writes in his
autobiography, Barriers Down,
"International bankers under the House of Rothschild acquired an
interest in the three leading European agencies."51
Thus the Rothschilds bought control of Reuters International News
Agency, based in London, Havas of France, and Wolf in Germany,
which controlled the dissemination of all news in Europe.
In Inside Europe52, John Gunther wrote in 1936 that any French
prime minister, at the end of 1935, was a creature of the
financial oligarchy, and that this financial oligarchy was
dominated by twelve regents, of whom six were bankers, and were
headed by Baron Edmond de Rothschild.
The iron grip of the "London Connection" on the media was exposed
in a recent book by Ben J. Bagdikian The Media Monopoly,
described as "A startling report on the 50 corporations that
412
control what America sees, hears, reads".53 Bagdikian, who edited
the nation’s most influential magazine the Saturday Evening Post
until the monopoly suddenly closed it down, reveals the
interlocking directorates among the fifty corporations which
control the news, but fails to trace them back to the five London
banking houses which control them. He mentions that CBS
interlocks with the Washington Post, Allied Chemical, Wells Fargo
Bank, and others, but does not tell the reader that Brown
Brothers Harriman controls CBS, or that the Eugene Meyer family
(Lazard Freres) controls Allied Chemical and the Washington Post,
and Kuhn Loeb Co. the Wells Fargo Bank. He shows the New York
Times interlocked with Morgan Guaranty Trust, American Express,
First Boston Corporation and others, but does not show how the
banking interlocks. He does not mention the Federal Reserve
System in his entire book, which is conspicuous by its absence.
Bagdikian documents that the media monopoly is steadily closing
down more newspapers and magazines. Washington D.C., with one
paper, The Post, is unique among world capitols. London has
eleven daily newspapers, Paris fourteen, Rome eighteen, Tokyo
seventeen, and Moscow nine. He cites a study from the 1982 World
Press Encyclopaedia that the United States is at the bottom of
industrial nations in the number of daily newspapers sold per
1,000 population. Sweden leads the list with 572, the United
States is at the bottom with 287. There is universal distrust of
the media by Americans, because of their notorious monopoly and
bias. The media unanimously urge higher taxes on working people,
more government spending, a welfare state with totalitarian
powers, close relations with Russia, and a rabid denunciation of
anyone who opposes Communism. This is the program of "the London
Connection." It flaunts a maniacal racism, and has as its motto
the dictum of its high priestess, Susan Sontag, that "The white
race is the cancer of history." Everyone should be against
cancer. The media monopoly deals with its opponents in one of two
ways; either frontal assault of libel which the average person
cannot afford to litigate, or an iron curtain of silence, the
standard treatment for any work which exposes its clandestine
activities.
Although the Rothschild plan does not match any single political
or economic movement since it was enunciated in 1773, vital parts
of it can be discerned in all political revolution since that
date. LaRouche54 points out that the Round Tables sponsored
Fabian Socialism in England, while backing the Nazi regime
through a Round Table member in Germany, Dr. Hjalmar Schacht, and
that they used the Nazi Government throughout World War II
through Round Table member Admiral Canaris, while Allen Dulles
ran a collaborating intelligence operation in Switzerland for the
Allies.
In 1775, the colonists of America declared their independence
from Great Britain, and subsequently won their freedom by the
413
American Revolution. Although they achieved political freedom,
financial independence proved to be a more difficult matter. In
1791, Alexander Hamilton, at the behest of European bankers,
formed the first Bank of the United States, a central bank with
much the same powers as the Bank of England. The foreign
influences behind this bank, more than a century later, were able
to get the Federal Reserve Act through Congress, giving them at
last the central bank of issue for our economy. Although the
Federal Reserve Bank was neither Federal, being owned by private
stockholders, nor a Reserve, because it was intended to create
money, instead of to hold it in reserve, it did achieve enormous
financial power, so much so that it has gradually superseded the
popular elected government of the United States. Through the
Federal Reserve System, American independence was stealthily but
invincibly absorbed back into the British sphere of influence.
Thus the London Connection became the arbiter of policy of the
United States.
Because of England’s loss of her colonial empire after the Second
World War, it seemed that her influence as a world political
power was waning. Essentially, this was true. The England of 1980
is not the England of 1880. She no longer rules the waves; she is
a second rate, perhaps third rate, military power, but
paradoxically, as her political and military power waned, her
financial power grew. In Capital City we find, "On almost any
measure you care to take, London is the world’s leading financial
centre . . . In the 1960s London dominance increased . . ."
and skills which have established London in its present
preeminence . . . . only the American banks have a lender of
last resort. The Federal Reserve Board of the United States can,
and does, create dollars when necessary. Without the Americans,
the big dollar deals cannot be put together.
Without them, London would not be credible as an international
financial centre.’"
Thus London is the world’s financial center, because it can
command enormous sums of capital, created at its command by the
Federal Reserve Board of the United States. But how is this
possible? We have already established that the monetary policies
of the United States, the interest rates, the volume and value of
money, and sales of bonds, are decided, not by the figurehead of
the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, but by the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York. The pretended decentralization of the
Federal Reserve System and its twelve, equally autonomous
"regional" banks, is and has been a deception since the Federal
Reserve Act became law in 1913. That United States monetary
policy stems solely from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is
yet another fallacy. That the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is
itself autonomous, and free to set monetary policy for the entire
United States without any outside interference is especially
untrue.
We might believe in this autonomy if we did not know that the
414
majority stock of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York was
purchased by three New York City banks: First National Bank,
National City Bank, and the National Bank of Commerce. An
examination of the principal stockholders in these banks, in
1914, and today, reveals a direct London connection.
In 1812, the National City Bank began business as the City Bank,
in the same room in which the defunct Bank of the United States,
whose charter had expired, had been doing business. It
represented many of the same stockholders, who were now
functioning under a legitimate American charter. During the early
1800s, the most famous name associated with City Bank was Moses
Taylor (1806-1882). Taylor’s father had been a confidential agent
employed in buying property for the Astor interests while
concealing the fact that Astor was the purchaser. Through this
tactic, Astor succeeded in buying many farms, and also a great
deal of potentially valuable real estate in Manhattan. Although
Astor’s capital was reputed to come from his fur trading, a
number of sources indicate that he also represented foreign
interests. LaRouche58 states that Astor, in exchange for
providing intelligence to the British during the years before and
after the Revolutionary War, and for inciting Indians to attack
and kill American settlers along the frontier, received a
handsome reward. He was not paid cash, but was given a percentage
of the British opium trade with China. It was the income from
this lucrative concession which provided the basis for the Astor
fortune.
With his father’s connection with the Astors, young Moses Taylor
had no difficulty in finding a place as apprentice in a banking
house at the age of 15. Like so many others in these pages, he
found his greatest opportunities when many other Americans were
going bankrupt during an abrupt contraction of credit. During the
Panic of 1837, when more than half the business firms in New York
failed, he doubled his fortune. In 1855, he became president of
City Bank. During the Panic of 1857, the City Bank profited by
the failure of many of its competitors. Like George Peabody and
Junius Morgan, Taylor seemed to have an ample supply of cash for
buying up distressed stocks. He purchased nearly all the stock of
Delaware Lackawanna Railroad for $5 a share. Seven years later,
it was selling for $240 a share. Moses Taylor was now worth fifty
million dollars.
In August, 1861, Taylor was named Chairman of the Loan Committee
to finance the Union Government in the Civil War. The Committee
shocked Lincoln by offering the government $5,000,000 at 12% to
finance the war. Lincoln refused and financed the war by issuing
the famous "Greenbacks" through the U.S. Treasury, which were
backed by gold. Taylor continued to increase his fortune
throughout the war, and in his later years, the youthful James
Stillman became his protégé. In 1882, when Moses Taylor died, he
left seventy million dollars.* His son-in-law, Percy Pyne,
succeeded him as president of City Bank, which had now become
415
National City Bank. Pyne was paralyzed, and was barely able to
function at the bank. For nine years, the bank stagnated, nearly
all its capital being the estate of Moses Taylor. William
Rockefeller, brother of John D. Rockefeller, had bought into the
bank, and was anxious to see it progress. He persuaded Pyne to
step aside in 1891 in favor of James Stillman, and soon the
National City Bank became the principal repository of the
Rockefeller oil income. William Rockefeller’s son, William,
married Elsie, James Stillman’s daughter, Isabel. Like so many
others in New York banking, James Stillman also had a British
connection. His father, Don Carlos Stillman, had come to
Brownsville, Texas, as a British agent and blockade runner during
the Civil War. Through his banking connections in New York, Don
Carlos had been able to find a place for his son as apprentice in
a banking house. In 1914, when National City Bank purchased
almost ten per cent of the shares of the newly organized Federal
Reserve Bank of New York, two of Moses Taylor’s grandsons, Moses
Taylor Pyne and Percy Pyne, owned 15,000 shares of National City
stock. Moses Taylor’s son, H.A.C. Taylor, owned 7699 shares of
National City Bank. The bank’s attorney, John W. Sterling, of the
firm of Shearman and Sterling, also owned 6000 shares of National
City Bank. However, James Stillman owned 47,498 shares, or almost
twenty percent of the bank’s total shares of 250,000.
The second largest purchaser of Federal Reserve Bank of New York
shares in 1914, First National Bank, was generally known as "the
Morgan Bank", because of the Morgan representation on the board,
although the bank’s founder George F. Baker held 20,000 shares,
and his son G.F. Baker, Jr., had 5,000 shares for twenty-five
percent of the bank’s total stock of 100,000 shares. George F.
Baker Sr.’s daughter married George F. St. George of London. The
St. Georges later settled in the United States, where their
daughter, Katherine St. George, became a prominent Congresswoman
for a number of years. Dr. E.M. Josephson wrote of her, "Mrs. St.
George, a first cousin of FDR and New Dealer, said, ‘Democracy is
a failure’." George Baker, Jr.’s daughter, Edith Brevoort Baker,
married Jacob Schiff’s grandson, John M. Schiff, in 1934. John M.
Schiff is now honorary chairman of Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb
Company.
The third large purchase of Federal Reserve Bank of New York
stock in 1914 was the National Bank of Commerce which issued
250,000 shares. J.P. Morgan, through his controlling interest in
Equitable Life, which held 24,700 shares and Mutual Life, which
held 17,294 shares of National Bank of Commerce, also held
another 10,000 shares of National Bank of Commerce through J.P.
Morgan and Company (7800 shares), J.P. Morgan, Jr. (1100 shares),
and Morgan partner H.P. Davison (1100 shares). Paul Warburg, a
Governor of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, also held
3000 shares of National Bank of Commerce. His partner, Jacob
Schiff had 1,000 shares of National Bank of Commerce. This bank
was clearly controlled by Morgan, who was really a subsidiary of
416
Junius S. Morgan Company in London and the N.M. Rothschild
Company of London, and Kuhn, Loeb Company, which was also known
as a principal agent of the Rothschilds.
The financier Thomas Fortune Ryan also held 5100 shares of
National Bank of Commerce stock in 1914. His son, John Barry
Ryan, married Otto Kahn’s daughter, Kahn was a partner of Warburg
and Schiff in Kuhn, Loeb Company, Ryan’s granddaughter, Virginia
Fortune Ryan, married Lord Airlie, the present head of J. Henry
Schroder Banking Corporation in London and New York.
Another director of National Bank of Commerce in 1914, A.D.
Juillard, was president of A.D. Juillard Company, a trustee of
New York Life, and Guaranty Trust, all of which were controlled
by J.P. Morgan. Juillard also had a British connection, being a
director of the North British and Mercantile Insurance Company.
Juillard owned 2000 shares of National Bank of Commerce stock,
and was also a director of Chemical Bank.
In The Robber Barons, by Matthew Josephson, Josephson tells us
that Morgan dominated New York Life, Equitable Life and Mutual
Life by 1900, which had one billion dollars in assets, and which
had fifty million dollars a year to invest. He says, "In this
campaign of secret alliances he (Morgan) acquired direct control
of the National Bank of Commerce; then a part ownership in the
First National Bank, allying himself to the very strong and
conservative financier, George F. Baker, who headed it; then by
means of stock ownership and interlocking directorates he linked
to the first named banks other leading banks, the Hanover,
the Liberty, and Chase."
Mary W. Harriman, widow of E.H. Harriman, also owned 5,000 shares
of National Bank of Commerce in 1914. E.H. Harriman’s railroad
empire had been entirely financed by Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb
Company. Levi P. Morton also owned 1500 shares of National Bank
of Commerce stock in 1914. He had been the twenty-second
vice-president of the United States, was an ex-Minister from the
U.S. to France, and president of L.P. Morton Company, New York,
Morton-Rose and Company and Morton Chaplin of London. He was a
director of Equitable Life Insurance Company, Home Insurance
Company, Guaranty Trust, and Newport Trust.
The astounding idea that the Federal Reserve System of the United
States is actually operated from London will probably be rejected
at first hearing by most Americans. However, Minsky has become
famous for his theory of the "dominant frame". He states that in
any particular situation, there is a "dominant frame" to which
everything in that situation is related and through which it can
be interpreted. The "dominant frame" in the monetary policy
decisions of the Federal Reserve System is that these decisions
are made by those who stand to benefit most from them. At first
glance, this would seem to be the principal stockholders of the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York. However, we have seen that
these stockholders all have a "London Connection". The "London
Connection" becomes more obvious as the dominant power when we
417
find in The Capital City that only seventeen firms are allowed to
operate as merchant bankers in the City of London, England’s
financial district. All of them must be approved by the Bank of
England. In fact, most of the Governors of the Bank of England
come from the partners of these seventeen firms. Clarke ranks the
seventeen in order of their capitalization. Number 2 is the
Schroder Bank. Number 6 is Morgan Grenfell, the London branch of
the House of Morgan and actually its dominant branch. Lazard
Brothers is Number 8. N.M. Rothschild is Number 9. Brown Shipley
Company, the London branch of Brown Brothers Harriman, is Number
14. These five merchant banking firms of London actually control
the New York banks which own the controlling interest in the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
The control over Federal Reserve System decisions is also founded
in another unique situation. Each day, representatives of four
other London banking firms meet in the offices of N.M. Rothschild
Company in London to fix the price of gold for that day. The
other four bankers are from Samuel Montagu Company, which ranks
Number 5 on the list of seventeen London merchant banking firms,
Sharps Pixley, Johnson Matheson, and Mocatta and Goldsmid.
Despite the huge tide of paper pyramided currency and notes which
are now flooding the world, at some point, every credit extension
must return to be based, in however minuscule a fashion, on some
deposit of gold in some bank somewhere in the world. Because of
this factor, the London merchant bankers, with their power to set
the price of gold each day, become the final arbiters of the
volume of money and the price of money in those countries which
must bow to their power. Not the least of these is the United
States. No official of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, or
of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, can command the power
over the money of the world which is held by these London
merchant bankers. Great Britain, while waning in political and
military power, today exercises the greatest financial power. It
is for this reason that London is the present financial center of
the world.
J. Henry Schroder Banking Company is listed as Number 2 in
capitalization in Capital City62 on the list of the seventeen
merchant bankers who make up the exclusive Accepting Houses
Committee in London. Although it is almost unknown in the United
States, it has played a large part in our history. Like the
others on this list, it had first to be approved by the Bank of
England. And, like the Warburg family, the von Schroders began
their banking operations in Hamburg, Germany. At the turn of the
century, in 1900, Baron Bruno von Schroder established the London
branch of the firm. He was soon joined by Frank Cyril Tiarks, in
1902. Tiarks married Emma Franziska of Hamburg, and was a
director of the Bank of England from 1912 to 1945.
During World War I, J. Henry Schroder Banking Company played an
important role behind the scenes. No historian has a reasonable
explanation of how World War I started. Archduke Ferdinand was
418
assassinated at Sarajevo by Gavril Princeps, Austria demanded an
apology from Serbia, and Serbia sent the note of apology. Despite
this, Austria declared war, and soon the other nations of Europe
joined the fray. Once the war had gotten started, it was found
that it wasn’t easy to keep it going. The principal problem was
that Germany was desperately short of food and coal, and without
Germany, the war could not go on. John Hamill in The Strange
Career of Mr. Hoover63 explains how the problem was solved.* He
quotes from Nordeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, March 4, 1915,
"Justice, however, demands that publicity should be given to the
preeminent part taken by the German authorities in Belgium in the
solution of this problem. The initiative came from them and it
was only due to their continuous relations with the American
Relief Committee that the provisioning question was solved."
Hamill points out "That is what the Belgian Relief Committee was
organized for--to keep Germany in food."
The Belgian Relief Commission was organized by Emile Francqui,
director of a large Belgian bank, Societe Generale, and a London
mining promoter, an American named Herbert Hoover, who had been
associated with Francqui in a number of scandals which had become
celebrated court cases, notably the Kaiping Coal Company scandal
in China, said to have set off the Boxer Rebellion, which had as
its goal the expulsion of all foreign businessmen from China.
Hoover had been barred from dealing on the London Stock Exchange
because of one judgement against him, and his associate, Stanley
Rowe, had been sent to prison for ten years. With this
background, Hoover was called an ideal choice for a career in
humanitarian work.
Although his name is unknown in the United States, Emile Francqui
was the guiding spirit behind Herbert Hoover’s rise to fortune.
Hamill (on page 156) identifies Francqui as the director of many
atrocities committed against natives in the Congo. "For every
cartridge they spent, they had to bring in a man’s hand".
Francqui’s frightful record may have been the source for the
charge later leveled against German soldiers in Belgium, that
they chopped off the hands of women and children, a claim which
proved to be groundless. Hamill also says that Francqui "tricked
the Americans out of the Hankow-Canton railroad concession in
China in 1901, and at the same time had ‘stood by’ in case Hoover
needed any further help in the ‘taking’ of the Kaiping coal
mines. This is the humanitarian who had sole charge of the
distribution of the Belgian ‘relief’ during the World War, for
which Hoover did the buying and shipping. Francqui was a director
with Hoover, in the Chinese Engineering and Mining Company (the
Kaiping mines), through which Hoover transported 200,000 Chinese
slave workers to the Congo to work Francqui’s copper mines."
Hamill says on page 311 that "Francqui opened the offices of the
Belgian Relief in his bank, Societe Generale, as a one-man show,
with a letter of permission from the German Governor General von
der Goltz dated October 16, 1914.
419
The New York Herald Tribune of February 18, 1930, quoted by
Congressman Louis McFadden in the House on February 26, 1930,
said, "One of Belgium’s two directors on the Bank for
International Settlements will be Emile Francqui of the Societe
Generale, a member of both the Young and Dawes Plan Committees.
The board of directors of the international bank will have no
more colorful character than Emile Francqui, former Minister of
Finance, veteran of the Congo and China . . . he is rated as the
richest man in Belgium, and among the twelve richest men in
Europe."
Despite his prominence, The New York Times Index mentions
Francqui only a few times during two decades before his death. On
October 3, 1931, The New York Times quoted Le Peuple of Brussels
that Francqui would visit the United States. "As a friend of
President Hoover, Monsieur Francqui will not fail to pay a visit
to the President."
On October 30, 1931, The New York Times reported this visit with
the headline, "Hoover-Francqui Talk was Unofficial". "It was
stated that Mr. Francqui spent Tuesday night as a personal guest
of the President, and that they talked of world financial
problems in general, strictly unofficial. Mr. Francqui was an
associate of President Hoover during the latters ministrations in
Belgium during the war. Their visit had no official significance.
Mr. Francqui is a private citizen and not engaged in any official
mission."
No reference is made to the Hoover-Francqui business associations
which were the subject of huge lawsuits in London. The Francqui
visit probably involved Hoover’s Moratorium on German War Debts,
which stunned the financial world. On December 15, 1931, Chairman
McFadden informed the House of a dispatch in the Public Ledger of
Philadelphia, October 24, 1931, "GERMAN REVEALS HOOVER’S SECRET.
The American President was in intimate negotiations with the
German government regarding a year’s debt holiday as early as
December, 1930." McFadden continued, "Behind the Hoover
announcement there were many months of hurried and furtive
preparations both in Germany and in Wall Street offices of German
bankers. Germany, like a sponge, had to be saturated with
American money. Mr. Hoover himself had to be elected, because
this scheme began before he became President. If the German
international bankers of Wall Street--that is Kuhn Loeb Company,
J. & W. Seligman, Paul Warburg, J. Henry Schroder--and their
satellites had not had this job waiting to be done, Herbert
Hoover would never have been elected President of the United
States. The election of Mr. Hoover to the Presidency was through
the influence of the Warburg Brothers, directors of the great
bank of Kuhn Loeb Company, who carried the cost of his election.
In exchange for this collaboration Mr. Hoover promised to impose
the moratorium of German debts. Hoover sought to exempt Kreuger’s
loan to Germany of $125 million from the operation of the Hoover
420
Moratorium. The nature of Kreuger’s swindle was known here in
January when he visited his friend, Mr. Hoover, in the White
House."
Not only did Hoover entertain Francqui in the White House, but
also Ivar Kreuger, the most famous swindler of the twentieth
century. When Francqui died on November 13, 1935, The New York Times
memorialized him as "the copper king of the Congo . . . Mr.
Francqui, last year having gained dictatorial powers over the
belga, maintained it on the gold standard during a crisis. In
1891 he led an expedition into the Congo and gained it for King
Leopold. A man of great wealth, rated among the twelve richest
men in Europe, he secured enormous copper deposits. He was
Minister of State in 1926 and Minister of Finance in 1934. It was
his pride that he never accepted a centime of remuneration for
his services to the government. While consul general at Shanghai,
he secured valuable concessions, notably the Kaiping coal mines
and the railway concession for the Tientsin Railroad. He was governor of
the Societe Generale de Belgique, Lloyd Royal Belge, and regent
of La Banque Nationale de Belgique."
The Times does not mention Francqui’s business partnerships with
Hoover. Like Francqui, Hoover also refused remuneration for
"government service", and as Secretary of Commerce and as
President of the United States, he turned his salary back to the
government.
On December 13, 1932, Chairman McFadden introduced a resolution
of impeachment against President Hoover for high crimes and
misdemeanors, which covers many pages, including violation of
contracts, unlawful dissipation of the financial resources of the
United States, and his appointment of Eugene Meyer to the Federal
Reserve Board. The resolution was tabled and never acted upon by
the House.
In criticizing Hoover’s Moratorium of German War Debts, McFadden
had referred to Hoover’s "German" backers. Although all of the
principals of "the London Connection" did originate in Germany,
most of them in Frankfurt, at the time they sponsored Hoover’s
candidacy for the Presidency of the United States, they were
operating from London, as Hoover himself had done for most of his
career.
Also, the Hoover Moratorium was not intended to "help" Germany,
as Hoover had never been "pro-German". The Moratorium on
Germany’s war debts was necessary so that Germany would have
funds for rearming. In 1931, the truly forward-looking diplomats
were anticipating the Second World War, and there could be no war
without an "aggressor".
Hoover had also carried out a number of mining promotions in
421
various parts of the world as a secret agent for the Rothschilds,
and had been rewarded with a directorship in one of the principal
Rothschild enterprises, the Rio Tinto Mines in Spain and Bolivia.
Francqui and Hoover threw themselves into the seemingly
impossible task of provisioning Germany during the First World
War. Their success was noted in Nordeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung,
March 13, 1915, which noted that large quantities of food were
now arriving from Belgium by rail. Schmoller’s Yearbook for
Legislation, Administration and Political Economy for 1916, shows
that one billion pounds of meat, one and a half billion pounds of
potatoes, one and a half billion pounds of bread, and one hundred
twenty-one millions pounds of butter had been shipped from
Belgium to Germany in that year. A patriotic British woman who
had operated a small hospital in Belgium for several years, Edith
Cavell, wrote to the Nursing Mirror in London, April 15, 1915,
complaining that the "Belgian Relief" supplies were being shipped
to Germany to feed the German army. The Germans considered Miss
Cavell to be of no importance, and paid no attention to her, but
the British Intelligence Service in London was appalled by Miss
Cavell’s discovery, and demanded that the Germans arrest her as a
spy. Sir William Wiseman, head of British Intelligence, and partner of
Kuhn Loeb Company, feared that the continuance of the war was at
stake, and secretly notified the Germans that Miss Cavell must be
executed. The Germans reluctantly arrested her and charged her
with aiding prisoners of war to escape. The usual penalty for
this offense was three months imprisonment, but the Germans bowed
to Sir William Wiseman’s demands, and shot Edith Cavell, thus
creating one of the principal martyrs of the First World War.
With Edith Cavell out of the way, the "Belgian Relief" operation
continued, although in 1916, German emissaries again approached
London officials with the information that they did not believe
Germany could continue military operations, not only because of
food shortages, but because of financial problems. More
"emergency relief" was sent, and Germany continued in the war
until November, 1918. Two of Hoover’s principal assistants were a
former lumber shipping clerk from the West Coast, Prentiss Gray,
and Julius H. Barnes, a grain salesman from Duluth. Both men
became partners in J. Henry Schroder Banking Corporation in New
York after the war, and amassed large fortunes, principally in
grain and sugar.
With the entry of the United States into the war, Barnes and Gray
were given important posts in the newly created U.S. Food
Administration, which also was placed under Herbert Hoover’s
direction. Barnes became President of the Grain Corporation of
the U.S. Food Administration from 1917 to 1918, and Gray was
chief of Marine Transportation. Another J. Henry Schroder
partner, G. A. Zabriskie, was named head of the U.S. Sugar
Equalization Board. Thus the London Connection controlled all
422
food in the United States through its grain and sugar "Czars"
during the First World War. Despite many complaints of corruption
and scandal in the U.S. Food Administration, no one was ever
indicted. After the war, the partners of J. Henry Schroder
Company found that they now owned most of Cuba’s sugar industry.
One partner, M.E. Rionda, was president of Cuba Cane Corporation,
and director of Manati Sugar Company, American British and
Continental Corporation, and other firms. Baron Bruno von
Schroder, senior partner of the firm, was a director of North
British and Mercantile Insurance Company. His father, Baron
Rudolph von Schroder of Hamburg, was a director of Sao Paulo
Coffee Ltd., one of the largest Brazilian coffee companies, with
F.C. Tiarks, also of the Schroder firm. After the war, Zabriskie, who had been sugar Czar of the
United
States by presiding over the U.S. Sugar Equalization Board,
became the president of several of the largest baking
corporations in the United States: Empire Biscuit, Southern
Baking Corporation, Columbia Baking, and other firms.
As his principal assistant in the U.S. Food Administration,
Hoover chose Lewis Lichtenstein Strauss, who was soon to become a
partner in Kuhn Loeb Company, marrying the daughter of Jerome
Hanauer of Kuhn Loeb. Throughout his distinguished humanitarian
service with the Belgian Relief Commission, the U.S. Food
Administration, and, after the war, the American Relief
Administration, Hoover’s closest associate was one Edgar Rickard,
born in Pontgibaud, France. In Who’s Who, he states that he was
"World War administrative assistant to Herbert Hoover in all war
and post-war organizations including the Commission For Relief in
Belgium. He also served on the U.S. Food Administration from
1914-1924." He remained one of Hoover’s closest friends, and
usually the Rickards and Hoovers took their vacations together.
After Hoover became Secretary of Commerce under Coolidge, Hamill
tells us that Hoover awarded his friend the Hazeltine Radio
patents, which paid him one million dollars a year in royalties.
In 1928, "the London Connection" decided to run Herbert Hoover
for president of the United States. There was only one problem;
although Herbert Hoover had been born in the United States, and
was thus eligible for the office of the presidency, according to
the Constitution, he had never had a business address or a home
address in the United States, as he had gone abroad just after
completing college at Stanford. The result was that during his
campaign for the presidency, Herbert Hoover listed as his
American address Suite 2000, 42 Broadway, New York, which was the
office of Edgar Rickard. Suite 2000 was also shared by the grain
tycoon and partner of J. Henry Schroder Banking Corporation,
Julius H. Barnes.
After Herbert Hoover was elected president of the United States,
423
he insisted on appointing one of the old London crowd, Eugene
Meyer, as Governor of the Federal Reserve Board. Meyer’s father
had been one of the partners of Lazard Freres of Paris, and
Lazard Brothers of London. Meyer, with Baruch, had been one of
the most powerful men in the United States during World War I, a
member of the famous Triumvirate which exercised unequalled
power; Meyer as Chairman of the War Finance Corporation, Bernard
Baruch as Chairman of the War Industries Board, and Paul Warburg
as Governor of the Federal Reserve System.
A longtime critic of Eugene Meyer, Chairman Louis McFadden of the
House Banking and Currency Committee, was quoted in The New York
Times, December 17, 1930, as having made a speech on the floor of
the House attacking Hoover’s appointment of Meyer, and charging
that "He represents the Rothschild interest and is liaison officer between
the French Government and J.P. Morgan." On December 18, The Times
reported that "Herbert Hoover is deeply concerned" and that
McFadden’s speech was "an unfortunate occurrence." On December
20, The Times commented on the editorial page, under the
headline, "McFadden Again", "The speech ought to insure the
Senate ratification of Mr. Meyer as head of the Federal Reserve.
The speech was incoherent, as Mr. McFadden’s speeches usually
are." As The Times predicted, Meyer was duly approved by the
Senate.
Not content with having a friend in the White House, J. Henry
Schroder Corporation was soon embarked on further international
adventures, nothing less than a plan to set up World War II. This
was to be done by providing, at a crucial juncture, the financing
for Adolf Hitler’s assumption of power in Germany. Although any
number of magnates have been given credit for the financing of
Hitler, including Fritz Thyssen, Henry Ford, and J.P. Morgan,
they, as well as others, did provide millions of dollars for his
political campaigns during the 1920s, just as they did for others
who also had a chance of winning, but who disappeared and were
never heard from again. In December of 1932, it seemed inevitable
to many observers of the German scene that Hitler was also ready
for a toboggan slide into oblivion. Despite the fact that he had
done well in national campaigns, he had spent all the money from
his usual sources and now faced heavy debts. In his book
Aggression, Otto Lehmann-Russbeldt tells us that "Hitler was
invited to a meeting at the Schroder Bank in Berlin on January 4,
1933. The leading industrialists and bankers of Germany tided
Hitler over his financial difficulties and enabled him to meet
the enormous debt he had incurred in connection with the
maintenance of his private army. In return, he promised to break
the power of the trade unions. On May 2, 1933, he fulfilled his
promise."64
Present at the January 4, 1933 meeting were the Dulles brothers,
424
John Foster Dulles and Allen W. Dulles of the New York law firm,
Sullivan and Cromwell, which represented the Schroder Bank. The
Dulles brothers often turned up at important meetings. They had
represented the United States at the Paris Peace Conference
(1919); John Foster Dulles would die in harness as Eisenhower’s
Secretary of State, while Allen Dulles headed the Central
Intelligence Agency for many years. Their apologists have seldom
attempted to defend the Dulles brothers appearance at the meeting
which installed Hitler as the Chancellor of Germany, preferring
to pretend that it never happened. Obliquely, one biographer
Leonard Mosley, bypasses it in Dulles when he states, "Both brothers had spent large amounts of
time in Germany, where
Sullivan and Cromwell had
considerable interest during the early 1930’s, having represented
several provincial governments,
some large industrial combines, a number of big American
companies with interests in the Reich,
and some rich individuals."65
Allen Dulles later became a director of J. Henry Schroder
Company. Neither he nor J. Henry Schroder were to be suspected of
being pro-Nazi or pro-Hitler; the inescapable fact was that if
Hitler did not become Chancellor of Germany, there was little
likelihood of getting a Second World War going, the war which
would double their profits.*
The Great Soviet Encyclopaedia states "The banking house Schroder
Bros. (it was Hitler’s banker) was established in 1846; its
partners today are the barons von Schroeder, related to branches
in the United States and England."66**
The financial editor of "The Daily Herald" of London wrote on
Sept. 30, 1933 of "Mr. Norman’s decision to give the Nazis the
backing of the Bank (of England.)" John Hargrave, in his
biography of Montagu Norman says,
"It is quite certain that Norman did all he could to assist
Hitlerism to gain and maintain political
power, operating on the financial plane from his stronghold in
Threadneedle Street." [i.e. Bank
of England.--Ed.]
Baron Wilhelm de Ropp, a journalist whose closest friend was
Major F.W. Winterbotham, chief
425
of Air Intelligence of the British Secret Service, brought the
Nazi philosopher, Alfred Rosenberg, to London and introduced him
to Lord Hailsham, Secretary for War, Geoffrey Dawson, editor of
The Times, and Norman, Governor of the Bank of England. After
talking with Norman, Rosenberg met with the representative of the
Schroder Bank of London. The managing director of the Schroder
Bank, F.C. Tiarks, was also a director of the Bank of England.
Hargrave says (p. 217), "Early in 1934 a select group of City
financiers gathered in Norman’s room behind the
windowless walls, Sir Robert Kindersley, partner of Lazard
Brothers, Charles Hambro, F.C.
Tiarks, Sir Josiah Stamp, (also a director of the Bank of
England). Governor Norman spoke of
the political situation in Europe. A new power had established
itself, a great ‘stabilizing force’, namely, Nazi Germany. Norman advised his co-workers to
include Hitler in their plans
for financing Europe. There was no opposition."
In Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, Antony C. Sutton writes
"The Nazi Baron Kurt von Schroeder acted as the conduit for
I.T.T. money funneled to Heinrich Himmler’s S.S. organization in
1944, while World War II was in progress, and the United States
was at war with Germany."67 Kurt von Schroeder, born in 1889, was
partner in the Cologne Bankhaus, J.H. Stein & Co., which had been
founded in 1788. After the Nazis gained power in 1933, Schroeder
was appointed the German representative at the Bank of
International Settlements. The Kilgore Committee in 1940 stated
that Schroeder’s influence with the Hitler Administration was so
great that he had Pierre Laval appointed head of the French
Government during the Nazi Occupation. The Kilgore Committee
listed more than a dozen important titles held by Kurt von
Schroeder in the 1940’s, including President of Deutsche
Reichsbahn, Reich Board of Economic Affairs, SS Senior Group
Leader, Council of Reich Post Office, Deutsche Reichsbank and
other leading banks and industrial groups. Schroeder served on
the board of all International Telephone and Telegraph
subsidiaries in Germany.
In 1938, the London Schroder Bank became the German financial
agent in Great Britain. The New York branch of Schroder had been
merged in 1936 with the Rockefellers, as Schroder, Rockefeller,
Inc. at 48 Wall Street. Carlton P. Fuller of Schroder was
president of this firm, and Avery Rockefeller was vice-president.
He had been a behind the scenes partner of J. Henry Schroder for
years, and had set up the construction firm of Bechtel
Corporation, whose employees (on leave) now play a leading role
in the Reagan Administration, as Secretary of Defense and
Secretary of State.
426
Ladislas Farago, in The Game of the Foxes,68 reported that Baron
William de Ropp, a double agent, had penetrated the highest
echelons in pre-World War II days, and Hitler relied upon de Ropp
as his confidential consultant about British affairs. It was de
Ropp’s advice which Hitler followed when he refused to invade
England.
Victor Perlo writes, in The Empire of High Finance:
"The Hitler government made the London Schroder Bank their
financial agent in Britain and
America. Hitler’s personal banking account was with J.M. Stein
Bankhaus, the German subsidiary
of the Schroder Bank. F.C. Tiarks of the British J. Henry
Schroder Company was a member of the Anglo-German Fellowship with two other
partners as members, and a
corporate membership."The story goes much further than Perlo suspects. J. Henry
Schroder WAS the Anglo-German Fellowship, the English equivalent
of the America First movement, and also attracting patriots who
did not wish to see their nation involved in a needless war with
Germany. During the 1930’s, until the outbreak of World War II,
the Schroders poured money into the Anglo-German Fellowship, with
the result that Hitler was convinced he had a large pro-German
fifth column in England composed of many prominent politicians
and financiers. The two divergent political groups in the 1930’s
in England were the War Party, led by Winston Churchill, who
furiously demanded that England go to war against Germany, and
the Appeasement Party, led by Neville Chamberlain. After Munich,
Hitler believed the Chamberlain group to be the dominant party in
England, and Churchill a minor rabble-rouser. Because of his own
financial backers, the Schroders, were sponsoring the Appeasement
Party, Hitler believed there would be no war. He did not suspect
that the backers of the Appeasement Party, now that Chamberlain
had served his purpose in duping Hitler, would cast Chamberlain
aside and make Churchill the Prime Minister. It was not only
Chamberlain, but also Hitler, who came away from Munich believing
that it would be "Peace in our time."
The success of the Schroders in duping Hitler into this belief
explains several of the most puzzling questions of World War II.
Why did Hitler allow the British Army to decamp from Dunkirk and
return home, when he could have wiped them out? Against the
frantic advice of his generals, who wished to deliver the coup de
grace to the English Army, Hitler held back because he did not
wish to alienate his supposed vast following in England. For the
same reason, he refused to invade England during a period when he
427
had military superiority, believing that it would not be
necessary, as the Anglo-German Fellowship group was ready to make
peace with him. The Rudolf Hess flight to England was an attempt
to confirm that the Schroder group was ready to make peace and
form a common bond against the Soviets. Rudolf Hess continues to
languish in prison today, many years after the war, because he
would, if released, testify that he had gone to England to contact the members of the
Anglo-German Fellowship, that is, the Schroder group, about
ending the war.*
If anyone supposes this is all ancient history, with no
application to the present political scene, we introduce the name
of John Lowery Simpson of Sacramento, California. Although he
appears for the first time in Who’s Who in America for 1952, Mr.
Simpson states that he served under Herbert Hoover on the
Commission for Relief in Belgium from 1915 to 1917; U.S. Food
Administration, 1917 to 1918, American Relief Commission, 1919,
and with P.N. Gray Company, Vienna, 1919 to 1921. Gray was the
Chief of Maritime Transportation for the U.S. Food
Administration, which enabled him to set up his own shipping
company after the war. Like other Hoover humanitarians, Simpson
also joined the J. Henry Schroder Banking Company (Adolf Hitler’s
personal bankers) and the J. Henry Schroder Trust Company. He
also became a partner of Schroder-Rockefeller Company when that
investment trust backed a construction company which became the
world’s largest, the firm of Bechtel Incorporated. Simpson was
chairman of the finance committee of Bechtel Company, Bechtel
International, and Canadian Bechtel. Simpson states he was
consultant to the Bechtel-McCone interests in war production
during World War II. He served on the Allied Control Commission
in Italy 1943-44. He married Margaret Mandell, of the merchant
family for whom Col. Edward Mandell House was named, and he
backed a California personality, first for Governor, then for
President. As a result, Simpson and J. Henry Schroder Company now
have serving them as Secretary of Defense, former Bechtel
employee Caspar Weinberger. As Secretary of State they have
serving them George Pratt Schultz, also a Bechtel employee, who
happens to be a Standard Oil heir, reaffirming the
Schroder-Rockefeller company ties. Thus the "conservative" Reagan
Administration has a Secretary of Defense from Schroder Company,
a Secretary of State from Schroder-Rockefeller, and a vice
president whose father was senior partner of Brown Brothers
Harriman. The following accounts are from The New York Times: October 21,
1945, "A broadcast over the Luxembourg radio said tonight that
Baron Kurt von Schroder, former banker who helped finance the
rise of the Nazi party, had been recognized in an American prison
camp and arrested." November 1, 1945, "British Army Headquarters:
Baron Kurt von Schroder, 55 year old banker and friend of
Heinrich Himmler is being held in Dusseldorf pending decision on
his indictment as a war criminal, the Military Government
428
official announcement said today." February 29, 1948, "An
immediate investigation was demanded yesterday by the Society for
the Prevention of World War III as to why the German Nazi banker,
Kurt von Schroder, was not tried as a war criminal by an allied
military tribunal. Noting that von Schroder was sentenced last
November to three months imprisonment and fined 1500 Reichsmarks
by a German denazification court in Bielefeld, in the British
Zone, C. Monteith Gilpin, secretary for the society said the
question should be asked why von Schroder was allowed to escape
allied justice, and why our own officials have not demanded that
von Schroder be tried by an Allied military tribunal. ‘Von
Schroder is as guilty as Hitler or Goering.’"
The Heritage Foundation has also been an important factor in the
policy-making of the Reagan Administration. Now we find that the
Heritage Foundation is part of the Tavistock Institute network,
directed by British Intelligence. The financial decisions are
still made at the Bank of England, and who is head of the Bank of
England? Sir Gordon Richardson, chairman of J. Henry Schroder Co.
of London and New York from 1962 to 1972, when he became Governor
of the Bank of England. The "London Connection" has never been
more firmly in the saddle of the United States Government.
On July 3, 1983, The New York Times announced that Gordon
Richardson, Governor of the Bank of England for the past ten
years, had been replaced by Robert Leigh-Pemberton, Chairman of
the National Westminster Bank. The list of directors of National
Westminster Bank reads like a Who’s Who of the British ruling
class. They include the Chairman, Lord Aldenham, who is also
Chairman of Antony Gibbs & Son, merchant bankers, one of the
seventeen privileged firms chartered by the Bank of England; Sir
Walter Barrie, Chairman of the British Broadcasting System; F.E.
Harmer, Governor of the London School of Economics, the training
school for the international bankers, and chairman of New Zealand
Shipping Company; Sir E.C. Mieville, private secretary to the
King of England 1937-45; Marquess of Salisbury, Lord Cecil, Lord
Privy Seal (the Cecils have been considered one of England’s
three ruling families since the Middle Ages); Lord Leathers,
Baron of Purfleet, Minister of War Transport 1941-45, chairman of
William Cory group of companies; Sir W.H. Coates and W.J. Worboys
of Imperial Chemical Industries (the English DuPont); Earl of
Dudley, chairman British Iron & Steel, Sir W. Benton Jones,
chairman United Steel and many other steel companies; Sir G.E.
Schuster, Bank of New Zealand; East India Coal Company; A. d’A.
Willis, Ashanti Goldfields and many banks, tea companies and
other firms; V.W. Yorke, chairman of Mexican Railways Ltd.
Richardson, former chairman of Schroders with a New York
subsidiary holding Federal Reserve Bank of New York stock, was
replaced by the chairman of National Westminster, with a
subsidiary in New York holding Federal Reserve Bank of New York
429
stock. Robert Leigh Pemberton, a director of Equitable Life
Assurance Society (J.P. Morgan), married the daughter of the
Marchioness of Exeter, (the Cecil Burghley family). Thereby, the
control of the London Connection remains constantly in effect.
The list of the present directors of J. Henry Schroder Bank and
Trust shows the continuing international influence since the
First World War. George A. Braga is also director of
Czarnikow-Rionda Company, vice-president of Francisco Sugar
Company, president of Manati Sugar Company, and vice-president of
New Tuinicui Sugar Company. His relative, Rionda B. Braga, is president of Francisco Sugar
Company and
vice-president of Manati Sugar Company. The Schroder control of
sugar goes back to the U.S. Food Administration under Herbert
Hoover and Lewis L. Strauss of Kuhn, Loeb, Company during World
War I. Schroder’s attorneys are the firm of Sullivan and
Cromwell. John Foster Dulles of this firm was present during the
historic agreement to finance Hitler, and was later Secretary of
State in the Eisenhower administration. Alfred Jaretzki, Jr., of
Sullivan and Cromwell is also a director of Manati Sugar Company
and Francisco Sugar Company.
Another director of J. Henry Schroder is Norris Darrell, Jr.,
born in Berlin, Germany, partner of Sullivan and Cromwell, and a
director of Schroder Trust Company. Bayless Manning, partner of
the Wall Street law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind and Wharton, is
also a director of J. Henry Schroder. He was president of the
Council on Foreign Relations from 1971-1977, and is editor in
chief of the Yale Law Review.
Paul H. Nitze, the prominent "disarmament negotiator" for the
United States government, is a director of Schroder’s Inc. He
married Phyllis Pratt, of the Standard Oil fortune, whose father
gave the Pratt family mansion as the building which houses the
Council on Foreign Relations.
It is now apparent that there might have been no World War
without the Federal Reserve System. A strange sequence of events,
none of which were accidental, had occurred. Without Theodore
Roosevelt’s "Bull Moose" candidacy, the popular President Taft
would have been reelected, and Woodrow Wilson would have returned
to obscurity.* If Wilson had not been elected, we might have had
no Federal Reserve Act, and World War One could have been
avoided. The European nations had been led to maintain large
standing armies as the policy of the central banks which dictated
their governmental decisions. In April, 1887, the Quarterly
Journal of Economics had pointed out:
"A detailed revue of the public debts of Europe shows interest
and sinking fund payments of
430
$5,343 million annually (five and one-third billion). M.
Neymarck’s conclusion is much like Mr.
Atkinson’s. The finances of Europe are so involved that the
governments may ask whether war,
with all its terrible chances, is not preferable to the
maintenance of such a precarious and costly
peace. If the military preparations of Europe do not end in war,
they may well end in the
bankruptcy of the States. Or, if such follies lead neither to war
nor to ruin, then they assuredly
point to industrial and economic revolution."
From 1887 to 1914, this precarious system of heavily armed but
bankrupt European nations endured, while the United States
continued to be a debtor nation, borrowing money from abroad, but
making few international loans, because we did not have a central
bank or "mobilization of credit". The system of national loans
developed by the Rothschilds served to finance European struggles
during the nineteenth century, because they were spread out over
Rothschild branches in several countries. By 1900, it was obvious
that the European countries could not afford a major war. They
had large standing armies, universal military service, and modern
weapons, but their economies could not support the enormous
expenditures. The Federal Reserve System began operations in 1914, forcing the American people
to lend the Allies twenty-five billion dollars which was not repaid, although considerable interest
was paid to New York bankers. The American people were driven to make war on the German
people, with whom we had no conceivable political or economic quarrel. Moreover, the United
States comprised the largest nation in the world composed of Germans; almost half of its citizens
were of German descent, and by a narrow margin, German had been voted down as the national
language.* The German Ambassador to Turkey, baron Wangeheim asked the American
Ambassador to Turkey, Henry Morgenthau, why the United States intended to make war in
Germany. "We Americans," replied Morgenthau, speaking for the group of Harlem real estate
operators of which he was the head, "are going to war for a moral principle." J.P. Morgan
received the proceeds of the First Liberty Loan to pay off $400,000,000 which he advanced to
Great Britain at the outset of the war. To cover this loan, $68,000,000 in notes had been issued
under the provisions of the Aldrich-Vreeland Act for issuing notes against securities, the only time
this provision was employed. The notes were retired as soon as the Federal Reserve Banks began
operation, and replaced by Federal Reserve Notes.
During 1915 and 1916, Wilson kept faith with the bankers who had purchased the White House
for him, by continuing to make loans to the Allies. His Secretary of State, William Jennings
Bryan, protested constantly, stating that "Money is the worst of all contraband." By 1917, the
Morgans and Kuhn, Loeb Company had floated a billion and a half dollars in loans to the Allies.
The bankers also financed a host of "peace" organizations which worked to get us involved in the
World War. The Commission for Relief in Belgium manufactured atrocity stories against the
431
Germans, while a Carnegie organization, The League to Enforce Peace, agitated in Washington
for our entry into war. This later became the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which
during the 1940s was headed by Alger Hiss. One writer* claimed that he had never seen any
"peace movement" which did not end in war.
The U.S. Ambassador to Britain, Walter Hines Page, complained that he could not afford the
position, and was given twenty-five thousand dollars a year spending money by Cleveland H.
Dodge, president of the National City Bank. H.L. Mencken openly accused Page in 1916 of being
a British agent, which was unfair. Page was merely a bankers’ agent.
On March 5, 1917, Page sent a confidential letter to Wilson. "I think that the pressure of this
approaching crisis has gone beyond the ability of the Morgan Financial Agency for the British
and French Govern-ments . . . The greatest help we could give the Allies would be a credit. Unless
we go to war with Germany, our Government, of course, cannot make such a direct grant of
credit."
The Rothschilds were wary of Germany’s ability to continue in the war, despite the financial
chaos caused by their agents, the Warburgs, who were financing the Kaiser, and Paul Warburg’s
brother, Max, who, as head of the German Secret Service, authorized Lenin’s train to pass
through the lines and execute the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. According to Under Secretary
of the Navy, Franklin D. Roosevelt, America’s heavy industry had been preparing for war for a
year. Both the Army and Navy Departments had been purchasing war supplies in large amounts
since early in 1916. Cordell Hull remarks in his Memoirs:
"The conflict forced the further development of the income-tax principle. Aiming, as it did, at the
one great untaxed source of revenue, the income-tax law had been enacted in the nick of time to
meet the demands of the war. And the conflict also assisted the putting into effect of the Federal
Reserve System, likewise in the nick of time."70
One may ask, in the nick of time for whom? Certainly not for the American people, who had no
need for "mobilization of credit" for a European war, or to enact an income tax to finance a war.
Hull’s statement affords a rare glimpse into the machinations of our "public servants".
The Notes of the Journal of Political Economy, October, 1917, state:
"The effect of the war upon the business of the Federal Reserve Banks has required an immense
development of the staffs of these banks, with a corresponding increase in expenses. Without, of
course, being able to anticipate so early and extensive a demand for their services in this
connection, the framers of the Federal Reserve Act had provided that the Federal Reserve Banks
should act as fiscal agents of the Government."
The bankers had been waiting since 1887 for the United States to enact a central bank plan so
that they could finance a European war among the nations whom they had already bankrupted
432
with armament and "defense" programs. The most demanding function of the central bank
mechanism is war finance.
On October 13, 1917, Woodrow Wilson made a major address, stating:
"It is manifestly imperative that there should be a complete mobilization of the banking reserves
of the United States. The burden and the privilege (of the Allied loans) must be shared by every
banking institution in the country. I believe that cooperation on the part of the banks is a
patriotic
duty at this time, and that membership in the Federal Reserve System is a distinct and
significant evidence of patriotism." E.W. Kemmerer writes that "As fiscal agents of the
Government, the federal reserve banks rendered the nations services of incalculable value after
our entrance into the war. They aided greatly in the conservation of our gold resources, in the
regulation of our foreign exchanges, and in the centralization of our financial energies. One
shudders when he thinks what might have happened if the war had found us with our former
decentralized and antiquated banking system."
Mr. Kemmerer’s shudders ignore the fact that if we had kept "our antiquated banking system"
we would not have been able to finance the World War or to enter as a participant ourselves.
Woodrow Wilson himself did not believe in his crusade to save the world for democracy. He later
wrote that "The World War was a matter of economic rivalry."
On being questioned by Senator McCumber about the circumstances of our entry into the war,
Wilson was asked, "Do you think if Germany had committed no act of war or no act of injustice
against our citizens that we would have gotten into this war?"
"I do think so," Wilson replied.
"You think we would have gotten in anyway?" pursued McCumber.
"I do," said Wilson.
In Wilson’s War Message in 1917, he included an incredible tribute to the Communists in Russia
who were busily slaughtering the middle class in that unfortunate country.
"Assurance has been added to our hope for the future peace of the world by the wonderful and
heartening things that have been happening in the last few weeks in Russia. Here is a fit partner
for a League of Honor."71
Wilson’s paean to a bloodthirsty regime which has since murdered sixty-six million of its
inhabitants in the most barbarous manner exposes his true sympathies and his true backers, the
bankers who had financed the blood purge in Russia. When the Communist Revolution seemed
433
in doubt, Wilson sent his personal emissary, Elihu Root, to Russia with one hundred million
dollars from his Special Emergency War Fund to save the toppling Bolshevik regime.
The documentation of Kuhn, Loeb Company’s involvement in the establishment of Communism
in Russia is much too extensive to be quoted here, but we include one brief mention, typical of the
literature on this subject. In his book, Czarism and the Revolution, Gen. Arsene de Goulevitch
writes, "Mr. Bakmetiev, the late Russian Imperial Ambassador to the United States, tells us that
the
Bolsheviks, after victory, transferred 600 million roubles in gold between the years 1918-1922 to
Kuhn, Loeb Company."
After our entry into World War I, Woodrow Wilson turned the government of the United States
over to a triumvirate of his campaign backers, Paul Warburg, Bernard Baruch and Eugene
Meyer. Baruch was appointed head of the War Industries Board, with life and death powers over
every factory in the United States. Eugene Meyer was appointed head of the War Finance
Corporation, in charge of the loan program which financed the war. Paul Warburg was in control
of the nation’s banking system*.
Knowing that the overwhelming sentiment of the American people during 1915 and 1916 had
been anti-British and pro-German, our British allies viewed with some trepidation the
prominence of Paul Warburg and Kuhn, Loeb Company in the prosecution of the war. They were
uneasy about his high position in the Administration because his brother, Max Warburg, was at
that time serving as head of the German Secret Service. On December 12, 1918, the United States
Naval Secret Service Report on Mr. Warburg was as follows:
"WARBURG, PAUL: New York City. German, naturalized citizen, 1911. was decorated by the
Kaiser in 1912, was vice chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Handled large sums furnished
by Germany for Lenin and Trotsky. Has a brother who is leader of the espionage system of
Germany."
Strangely enough, this report, which must have been compiled much earlier, while we were at war
with Germany, is not dated until December 12, 1918. AFTER the Armistice had been signed.
Also, it does not contain the information that Paul Warburg resigned from the Federal Reserve
Board in May, 1918, which indicates that it was compiled before May, 1918, when Paul Warburg
would theoretically have been open to a charge of treason because of his brother’s control of
Germany’s Secret Service.
Paul Warburg’s brother Felix in New York was a director of the Prussian Life Insurance
Company of Berlin, and presumably would not have liked to see too many of his policyholders
killed in the war. On September 26, 1920, The New York Times mentioned in its obituary of
Jacob Schiff in reference to Kuhn, Loeb and Company, "During the world War certain of its
members were in constant contact with the Government in an advisory capacity. It shared in the
conferences which were held regarding the organization and formation of the Federal Reserve
434
System."
The 1920 Schiff obituary revealed for the first time that Jacob Schiff, like the Warburgs, also had
two brothers in Germany during World War I, Philip and Ludwig Schiff, of Frankfurt-on-Main,
who also were active as bankers to the German Government! This was not a circumstance to be
taken lightly, as on neither side of the Atlantic were the said bankers obscure individuals who had
no influence in the conduct of the war. On the contrary, the Kuhn, Loeb partners held the highest
governmental posts in the United States during World War I, while in Germany, Max and Fritz
Warburg, and Philip and Ludwig Schiff, moved in the highest councils of government. From
Memoirs of Max Warburg, "The Kaiser thumbed the table violently and shouted, ‘Must you
always be right?’ but then listened carefully to Max’s view on financial matters."72
In June, 1918, Paul Warburg wrote a private note to Woodrow Wilson, "I have two brothers in
Germany who are bankers. They naturally now serve their country to their utmost ability, as I
serve mine."73
Neither Wilson nor Warburg viewed the situation as one of concern, and Paul Warburg served
out his term on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, while World War I continued to rage.
The background of Kuhn, Loeb & Company had been exposed in "Truth Magazine", edited by
George Conroy:
"Mr. Schiff is head of the great private banking house of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. which represents the
Rothschild interest on this side of the Atlantic. He has been described as a financial strategist and
has been for years the financial minister to the great impersonal power known as Standard Oil.
He was hand-in-glove with the Harrimans, the Goulds and the Rockefellers, in all their railroad
enterprises and has become the dominant power in the railroad and financial world in America.
Louis Brandeis, because of his great ability as a lawyer and for other reasons which will appear
later, was selected by Schiff as the instrument through which Schiff hoped to achieve his
ambition in New England. His job was to carry on an agitation which would undermine public
confidence in the New Haven system and cause a decrease in the price of its securities, thus
forcing them on the market for the wreckers to buy."
We mention Schiff’s lawyer, Brandeis, here because the first available appointment on the
Supreme Court of the United States which Woodrow Wilson was allowed to fill was given to the
Kuhn, Loeb lawyer, Brandeis.
Not only was the U.S. Food Administration managed by Hoover’s director, Lewis Lichtenstein
Strauss, who married into the Kuhn Loeb Company by marrying Alice Hanauer, daughter of
partner Jerome Hanauer, but in the most critical field, military intelligence, Sir William
Wiseman, chief of the British Secret Service, was a partner of Kuhn, Loeb & Company. He
worked most closely with Wilson’s alter ego, Col. House. "Between House and Wiseman there
were soon to be few political secrets, and from their mutual comprehension resulted in large
measure our close cooperation with the British."
435
One example of House’s cooperation with Wiseman was a confidential agreement which House
negotiated pledging the United States to enter into World War I on the side of the Allies. Ten
months before the election which returned Wilson to the White House in 1916 ‘because he kept
us out of war’, Col. House negotiated a secret agreement with England and France on behalf of
Wilson which pledged the United States to intervene on behalf of the Allies. On March 9, 1916,
Wilson formally sanctioned the undertaking.
Nothing could more forcefully illustrate the duplicity of Woodrow Wilson’s nature than his
nationwide campaign on the slogan, "He kept us out of war", when he had pledged ten months
earlier to involve us in the war on the side of England and France. This explains why he was
regarded with such contempt by those who learned the facts of his career. H.L. Mencken wrote
that Wilson was "the perfect model of the Christian cad", and that we ought "to dig up his bones
and make dice of them."
According to The New York Times, Paul Warburg’s letter of resignation stated that some
objection had been made because he had a brother in the Swiss Secret Service. The New York
Times has never corrected this blatant falsehood, perhaps because Kuhn, Loeb Company owned
a controlling interest in its stock. Max Warburg was not Swiss, and although he had probably
come into contact with the Swiss Secret Service during his term of office as head of the German
Secret Service, no responsible editor at The New York Times could have been unaware of the fact
that Max Warburg was German, and that his family banking house was in Hamburg, and that he
held a number of high positions in the German Government. He represented Germany at the
Versailles Peace Conference, and remained peacefully in Germany until 1939, during a period
when persons of his religion were being persecuted. To avoid injury during the approaching war,
when bombs would rain on Germany, Max Warburg was allowed to sail to New York, his funds
intact. It seemed strange that Woodrow Wilson felt it necessary to place the nation in the hands
of three men whose personal history was one of ruthless speculation and the quest for personal
gain, or that during war with Germany, he found as persons of supreme trust a German
immigrant naturalized in 1911, the son of an immigrant from Poland, and the son of an
immigrant from France. Bernard Baruch first attracted attention on Wall Street in 1890 while
working for A.A. Housman & Co.
In 1896 he merged the six principal tobacco companies of the United States into the Consolidated
Tobacco Company, forcing James Duke and the American Tobacco Trust to enter into this
combination. The second great trust set up by Baruch brought the copper industry into the
hands
of the Guggenheim family, who have controlled it ever since. Baruch worked with Edward H.
Harriman, who was Schiff’s front man in controlling America’s railway system for the Rothschild
family. Baruch and Harriman also combined their talents to gain control over the New York City
transit system, which has been in perilous financial condition ever since.
In 1901, Baruch formed the firm of Baruch Brothers, bankers, with his brother Herman, in New
York. In 1917, when Baruch was appointed Chairman of the War Industries Board, the name
was changed to Hentz Brothers.
Testifying before the Nye Committee on September 13, 1937, Bernard Baruch stated that "All
wars are economic in their origin." So much for religious and political disagreements, which had
been specially touted as the cause of wars.*
436
A profile in the "New Yorker" magazine reported that Baruch made a profit of seven hundred
fifty thousand dollars in one day during World War I, after a phony peace rumor was planted in
Washington. In "Who’s Who", Baruch mentions that he was a member of the Commission which
handled all purchasing for the Allies during World War I. In fact, Baruch WAS the Commission.
He spent the American taxpayer’s money at the rate of ten billion dollars a year, and was also the
dominant member of the Munitions Price-Fixing Committee. He set the prices at which the
Government bought war materials. It would be naive to presume that the orders did not go to
firms in which he and his associates had more than a polite interest.
dictator over American manufacturers.* At the Nye Committee hearings in 1935, Baruch
testified, "President Wilson gave me a letter authorizing me to take over any industry or plant.
There was Judge Gary, President of United States Steel, whom we were having trouble with, and
when I
showed him that letter, he said, ‘I guess we will have to fix this up’, and he did fix it up."
Some members of Congress were curious about Baruch’s qualifications to exercise life and death
powers over American industry in time of war. He was not a manufacturer, and had never been in
a factory. When he was called before a Congressional Committee, Bernard Baruch stated that his
profession was "Speculator". A Wall Street gambler had been made Czar of American Industry.
Chart I reveals The linear connection between the Rothschilds and the Bank of England, and the
London banking houses which ultimately control the Federal Reserve Banks through their
stockholdings of bank stock and their subsidiary firms in New York. The two principal
Rothschild representatives in New York, J.P. Morgan Co., and Kuhn, Loeb & Co. were the firms
which set up the Jekyll Island Conference at which the Federal Reserve Act was drafted, who
directed the subsequent successful campaign to have the plan enacted into law by Congress, and
who purchased the controlling amounts of stock in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in
1914. These firms had their principal officers appointed to the Federal Reserve Board of
Governors and the Federal Advisory Council in 1914.
In 1914 a few families (blood or business related) owning controlling stock in existing banks (such
as in New York City) caused those banks to purchase controlling shares in the Federal Reserve
regional banks.
Examination of the charts and text in the House Banking Committee Staff Report of August,
1976 and the current stockholders list of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks shows this same
family control. Baruch’s erstwhile partner, Eugene Meyer, (Alaska-Juneau Gold Mining Co.),
later claimed that Baruch was a nitwit, and that Meyer, with his family banking connections
(Lazard Freres), had guided Baruch’s investment career. These claims appeared in the fiftieth
anniversary edition of The Washington Post, editorial page, June 4, 1983, with a parting shot
from Meyer’s editor, Al Friendly, that "Every journalist in Washington, Meyer included, knew
that Bernard M. Baruch was a self-aggrandizing phony."
The third member of the Triumvirate, Eugene Meyer, was son of the partner in the international
banking house of Lazard Freres, of Paris and New York. In My Own Story Baruch explains how
Meyer became head of the War Finance Corporation. "At the outset of World War One," he says,
"I sought out Eugene Meyer, Jr. . . . who was a man of the highest integrity with a keen desire to
be of public service."
The nation has suffered greatly from persons who desired to be of public service, because their
desires often went considerably beyond their passion for office. In fact, Meyer and Baruch had
operated an Alaska venture, Alaska-Juneau Gold Mining Company in 1915, and had worked
together on other financial schemes. Meyer’s family house of Lazard Freres specialized in
international gold movements. Eugene Meyer’s stewardship of the War Finance Corporation
comprises one of the most amazing financial operations ever partially recorded in this country.
We say "partially recorded", because subsequent Congressional investigations revealed that each
437
night, the books were being altered before being brought in for the next day’s investigation. Louis
McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, figured in two
investigations of Meyer, in 1925, and again in 1930, when Meyer was proposed as Governor of
the Federal Reserve Board. The Select Committee to Investigate the Destruction of Government
Bonds, submitted, on March 2, 1925, "Preparation and Destruction of Government Bonds--68th
Congress, 2d Session, Report No. 1635:
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Jerome J. Hanauer, partner of Kuhn, Loeb Co. whose
daughter married Lewis L. Strauss) agreed to the price, and it was simply an arbitrary figure set
by an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury as to the bonds so purchased by the War Finance
Corporation. During the period of these transactions and up until quite a recent date the
managing director of the War Finance Corporation, Eugene Meyer, Jr., in his private capacity
maintained an office at No. 14 Wall Street, New York City, and through the War Finance
Corporation sold about $70 millions in bonds to the Government, and also bought through the
War Finance Corporation about $10 millions in bonds, and approved the bills for most, if not all,
of these bonds in his official capacity as managing director of the War Finance Corporation.
It is America’s misfortune that our subsidized press and educational system have been devoted to
enshrining a man who colluded in causing so much death and sorrow throughout the world.
The financial cartel suffered only minor setbacks in those crucial years. On February 12, 1917,
The New York Times reported that "The five members of the Federal Reserve Board were
impeached on the floor of the House by Rep. Charles A. Lindbergh, Republican member of the
House Banking and Currency Committee. According to Mr. Lindbergh, ‘the conspiracy began in’
1906 when the late J.P. Morgan, Paul M. Warburg, a present member of the Federal Reserve
Board, the National City Bank and other banking firms ‘conspired’ to obtain currency legislation
in the interest of big business and the appointment of a special board to administer such a law, in
order to create industrial slaves of the masses, the aforesaid conspirators did conspire and are
now conspiring to have the Federal Reserve Board administered so as to enable the conspirators
to coordinate all kinds of big business and to keep themselves in control of big business in order
to amalgamate all the trusts into one great trust in restraint and control of trade and commerce."
The impeachment resolution was not acted on by the House.
The New York Times reported on August 10, 1918, "Mr. Warburg’s term having expired, he
voluntarily retired from the Federal Reserve Board."
Paul Warburg accompanied Wilson on the American Commission to Negotiate Peace as his chief
financial advisor. He was pleasantly surprised to find at the head of the German delegation his
brother, Max Warburg, who brought along Carl Melchior, also of M.M. Warburg Company,
William Georg von Strauss, Franz Urbig, and Mathias Erzberger.
Thomas W. Lamont states in his privately printed memoirs, Across World Frontiers, "The
German delegation included two German bankers of the Warburg firm whom I happened to
know slightly and with whom I was glad to talk informally, for they seemed to be striving
earnestly to offer some reparations composition that might be acceptable to the Allies."84
Lamont was also pleased to see Sir William Wiseman, chief advisor to the British delegation.
The bankers at the conference convinced Wilson that they needed an international government to
facilitate their international monetary operations. Vol. IV, p. 52, Intimate Papers of Col. House
quotes a message from Sir William Wiseman to Lord Reading, August 16, 1918, "The President
has two main principles in view; there must be a League of Nations and it must be virile."
Wilson, who seems to have lived in a world of fantasy, was shocked when American citizens booed
438
him during his campaign to have them sign over their hard won independence to what appeared
to many to be an international dictatorship. He promptly went into a depression, and retired to
his bedroom. His wife immediately shut the White House doors against Col. House, and from
September 25, 1919 to April 13, 1920, she ruled the United States with the aid of an intimate
friend, her "military aide", Col. Rixey Smith. As everyone was shut out of their deliberations, no
one ever knew which of the pair functioned as the President, and which was the Vice President.
The admirers of Woodrow Wilson were led for decades by Bernard Baruch, who stated that
Woodrow Wilson was the greatest man he ever knew. Wilson’s appointments to the Federal
Reserve Board, and that body’s responsibility for financing the First World War, as well as
Wilson’s handing over the United States to the immigrant triumvirate during the War, made him
appear to be the most important single effector of ruin in American history.
It is no wonder that after his abortive trip to Europe, where he was hissed and jeered in the
streets by the French people, and snickered at in the halls of Versailles by Orlando and
Clemenceau, Woodrow Wilson returned home to take to his bed. The sight of the destruction and
death in Europe, for which he was directly responsible, was perhaps more of a shock than he
could bear.
When Paul Warburg resigned from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors in 1918, his place
was taken by Albert Strauss, partner in the international banking house of J & W Seligman. This
banking house had large interests in Cuba and South America, and played a prominent part in
financing the many revolutions in those countries. Its most notorious publicity came during the
Senate Finance Committee’s investigation in 1933, when it was brought out that J & W Seligman
had given a $415,000 bribe to Juan Leguia, son of the President of Peru, in order to get that
nation to accept a loan.
A partial list of Albert Strauss’ directorships, according to "Who’s Who", shows that he was:
Chairman of the Board of the Cuba Cane Sugar Corporation; director, Brooklyn Manhattan
Transit Co., Coney Island Brooklyn RR, New York Rapid Transit, Pierce-Arrow, Cuba Tobacco
Corporation, and the Eastern Cuba Sugar Corporation.
Governor Delano resigned in August, 1918, to be commissioned a Colonel in the Army. The war
ended on November 11, 1918.
William McAdoo was replaced in 1918 by Carter Glass as Secretary of the Treasury. Both Strauss
and Glass were present during the secret meeting of the Federal Reserve Board on May 18, 1920,
when the Agricultural Depression of 1920-21 was made possible.
One of the main lies about the Federal Reserve Act when it was being ballyhooed in 1913 was its
promise to take care of the farmer. Actually, it has never taken care of anybody but a few big
bankers. Prof. O.M.W. Sprague, Harvard economist, writing in the Quarterly Journal of
Economics of February, 1914, said:
"The primary purpose of the Federal Reserve Act is to make sure that there will always be an
available supply of money and credit in this country to meet unusual banking requirements."
There is nothing in that wording to help the farmer.
The First World War had introduced into this country a general prosperity, as revealed by the
439
stocks of heavy industry on the New York Exchange in 1917-1918, by the increase in the amount
of money circulated, and by the enormous bank clearings during the whole of 1918. It was the
assigned duty of the Federal Reserve System to get back the vast amount of money and credit
which had escaped their control during this time of prosperity. This was done by the Agricultural
Depression of 1920-21.
The operations of the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee in 1917-18, while Paul Warburg
was still Chairman, show a tremendous increase in purchases of bankers’ and trade acceptances.
There was also a great increase in the purchase of United States Government securities, under the
leadership of the able Eugene Meyer, Jr. A large part of the stock market speculation in 1919, at
the end of the War when the market was very unsettled, was financed with funds borrowed from
Federal Reserve Banks with Government securities as collateral. Thus the Federal Reserve
System set up the Depression, first by causing inflation, and then raising the discount rate and
making money dear.
In 1914, Federal Reserve Bank rates had dropped from six percent to four percent, had gone to a
further low of three percent in 1916, and had stayed at that level until 1920. The reason for the
low interest rate was the necessity for floating the billion dollar Liberty Loans. At the beginning
of each Liberty Loan Drive, the Federal Reserve Board put a hundred million dollars into the
New York money market through its open market operations, in order to provide a cash impetus
for the drive. The most important role of the Liberty Bonds was to soak up the increase in
circulation of the medium of exchange (integer of account) brought about by the large amount of
currency and credit put out during the war. Laborers were paid high wages, and farmers received
the highest prices for their produce they had ever known. These two groups accumulated millions
of dollars in cash which they did not put into Liberty Bonds. That money was effectively out of
the hands of the Wall Street group which controlled the money and credit of the United States.
They wanted it back, and that is why we had the Agricultural Depression of 1920-21.
Much of the money was deposited in small country banks in the Middle West and West which
had refused to have any part of the Federal Reserve System, the farmers and ranchers of those
regions seeing no good reason why they should give a group of international financiers control of
their money. The main job of the Federal Reserve System was to break these small country banks
and get back the money which had been paid out to the farmers during the war, in effect, ruin
them, and this it proceeded to do.
First of all, a Federal Farm Loan Board was set up which encouraged the farmers to invest their
accrued money in land on long term loans, which the farmers were eager to do. Then inflation
was allowed to take its course in this country and in Europe in 1919 and 1920. The purpose of the
inflation in Europe was to cancel out a large portion of the war debts owed by the Allies to the
American people, and its purpose in this country was to draw in the excess moneys which had
been distributed to the working people in the form of higher wages and bonuses for production.
As prices went higher and higher, the money which the workers had accumulated became worth
less and less, inflicting upon them an unfair drain, while the propertied classes were enriched by
the inflation because of the enormous increase in the value of land and manufactured goods. The
workers were thus effectively impoverished, but the farmers, who were as a class more thrifty,
and who were more self-sufficient, had to be handled more harshly.
G.W. Norris, in "Collier’s Magazine" of March 20, 1920, said:
"Rumor has it that two members of the Federal Reserve Board had a plain talk with some New
440
York bankers and financiers in December, 1919. Immediately afterwards, there was a notable
decline in transactions on the stock market and a cessation of company promotions. It is
understood that action in the same general direction has already been taken in other sections of
the country, as evidence of the abuse of the Federal Reserve System to promote speculation in
land and commodities appeared."
Senator Robert L. Owen, Chairman of the Senate Banking and Currency Committee, testified at
the Senate Silver Hearings in 1939 that:
"In the early part of 1920, the farmers were exceedingly prosperous. They were paying off the
mortgages and buying a lot of new land, at the instance of the Government--had borrowed money
to do it--and then they were bankrupted by a sudden contraction of credit and currency which
took place in 1920. What took place in 1920 was just the reverse of what should have been taking
place. Instead of liquidating the excess of credits created by the war through a period of years, the
Federal Reserve Board met in a meeting which was not disclosed to the public. They met on the
18th of May, 1920, and it was a secret meeting. They spent all day conferring; the minutes made
sixty printed pages, and they appear in Senate Document 310 of February 19, 1923. The Class A
Directors, the Federal Reserve Advisory Council, were present, but the Class B Directors, who
represented business, commerce, and agriculture, were not present. The Class C Directors,
representing the people of the United States, were not present and were not invited to be present.
Only the big bankers were there, and their work of that day resulted in a contraction of credit
which had the effect the next year of reducing the national income fifteen billion dollars,
throwing millions of people out of employment, and reducing the value of lands and ranches by
twenty billion dollars."
Carter Glass, member of the Board in 1920 as Secretary of the Treasury, wrote in his
autobiography, Adventure in Constructive Finance published in 1928; "Reporters were not
present, of course, as they should not have been and as they never are at any bank board meeting
in the world."It was Carter Glass who had complained that, if a suggested amendment by
Senator LaFollette were passed, on the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, to the effect that no member
of the Federal Reserve Board should be an official or director or stockholder of any bank, trust
company, or insurance company, we would end up by having mechanics and farm laborers on the
Board. Certainly mechanics and farm laborers could have caused no more damage to the country
441
than did Glass, Strauss, and Warburg at the secret meeting of the Federal Reserve Board.
Senator Brookhart of Iowa testified that at that secret meeting Paul Warburg, also President of
the Federal Advisory Council, had a resolution passed to send a committee of five to the
Interstate Commerce Commission and ask for an increase in railroad rates. As head of Kuhn,
Loeb Co. which owned most of the railway mileage in the United States, he was already missing
the huge profits which the United States Government had paid during the war, and he wanted to
inflict new price raises on the American people. he Senate Hearings of 1923 investigating the
causes of the Agricultural Depression of 1920-21 had been demanded by the American people.
The complete record of the secret meeting of the Federal Reserve Board on May 18, 1920 had
been printed in the "Manufacturers’ Record" of Baltimore, Maryland, a magazine devoted to the
interests of small Southern manufacturers.
Benjamin Strong, Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and close friend of
Montagu Norman, the Governor of the Bank of England, claimed at these Hearings:
"The Federal Reserve System has done more for the farmer than he has yet begun to realize."
Emmanuel Goldenweiser, Director of Research for the Board of Governors, claimed that the
discount rate was raised purely as an anti-inflationary measure, but he failed to explain why it
was a raise aimed solely at farmers and workers, while at the same time the System protected the
manufacturers and merchants by assuring them increased credits.
The final statement on the Federal Reserve Board’s causing the Agricultural Depression of 1920-
21 was made by William Jennings Bryan. In "Hearst’s Magazine" of November, 1923, he wrote:
"The Federal Reserve Bank that should have been the farmer’s greatest protection has become
his
greatest foe. The deflation of the farmer was a crime deliberately committed." The editorial page
of The New York Times, January 18, 1920, carried an interesting comment on the Federal
Reserve System. The unidentified writer, perhaps Paul Warburg, stated, "The Federal Reserve is
a fount of credit, not of capital." This is one of the most revealing statements ever made about the
Federal Reserve System. It says that the Federal Reserve System will never add anything to our
capital structure, or to the formation of capital, because it is organized to produce credit, to
create money for credit money and speculations, instead of providing capital funds for the
improvement of commerce and industry. Simply stated, capitalization would mean the providing
of notes backed by a precious metal or other commodity. Reserve notes are unbacked paper
loaned at interest.
On July 25, 1921, Senator Owen stated on the editorial page of The New York Times, The Federal
Reserve Board is the most gigantic financial power in all the world. Instead of using this great
power as the Federal Reserve Act intended that it should, the board....delegated this power to the
banks, threw the weight of its influence toward the support of the policy of German inflation."
The senator whose name was on the Act saw that it was not performing as promised.
After the Agricultural Depression of 1920-21, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors settled
down to eight years of providing rapid credit expansion of the New York bankers, a policy which
culminated in the Great Depression of 1929-31 and helped paralyze the economic structure of the
world. Paul Warburg had resigned in May, 1918, after the monetary system of the United States
442
had been changed from a bond-secured currency to a currency based upon commercial paper
and the shares of the Federal Reserve Banks. Warburg returned to his five hundred thousand
dollar a year job with Kuhn, Loeb Company, but he continued to determine the policy of the
Federal Reserve System, as President of the Federal Advisory Council and as Chairman of the
Executive Committee of the American Acceptance Council.
From 1921 to 1929, Paul Warburg organized three of the greatest trusts in the United States, the
International Acceptance Bank, largest acceptance bank in the world, Agfa Ansco Film
Corporation, with headquarters in Belgium, and I.G. Farben Corporation whose American
branch Warburg set up as I.G. Chemical Corporation. The Westinghouse Corporation is also one
of his creations.
In the early 1920s, the Federal Reserve System played the decisive role in the re-entry of Russia
into the international finance structure. Winthrop and Stimson continued to be the
correspondents between Russian and American bankers, and Henry L. Stimson handled the
negotiations concluding in our recognition of the Soviet after Roosevelt’s election in 1932. This
was an anti-climax, because we had long before resumed exchange relations with Russian
financiers.
The Federal Reserve System began purchasing Russian gold in 1920, and Russian currency was
accepted on the Exchanges. According to Colonel Ely Garrison, in his autobiography, and
according to the United States Naval Secret Service Report on Paul Warburg, the Russian
Revolution had been financed by the Rothschilds and Warburgs, with a member of the Warburg
family carrying the actual funds used by Lenin and Trotsky in Stockholm in 1918.
An article in the English monthly "Fortnightly", July, 1922, says:
"During the past year, practically every single capitalistic institution has been restored. This is
true of the State Bank, private banking, the Stock Exchange, the right to possess money to
unlimited amount, the right of inheritance, the bill of exchange system, and other institutions and
practices involved in the conduct of private industry and trade. A great part of the former
nationalized industries are now found in semi-independent trusts."
The organization of powerful trusts in Russia under the guise of Communism made possible the
receipt of large amounts of financial and technical help from the United States. The Russian
aristocracy had been wiped out because it was too inefficient to manage a modern industrial
state. The international financiers provided funds for Lenin and Trotsky to overthrow the Czarist
regime and keep Russia in the First World War. Peter Drucker, spokesman for the oligarchy in
America, declared in an article in the Saturday Evening Post in 1948, that:
"RUSSIA IS THE IDEAL OF THE MANAGED ECONOMY TOWARDS WHICH WE ARE
MOVING."
In Russia, the issuance of sufficient currency to handle the needs of their economy occurred only
after a government had been put in power which had absolute control of the people. During the
443
1920s, Russia issued large quantities of so-called "inflation money", a managed currency. The
same "Fortnightly" article (of July, 1922) observed that:
"As economic pressure produced the ‘astronomical dimensions system’ of currency; it can never
destroy it. Taken alone, the system is self-contained, logically perfected, even intelligent. And it
can perish only through the collapse or destruction of the political edifice which it decorates."
Admiral Kolchak, leader of the White Russian armies, was supported by the international
bankers, who sent British and American troops to Siberia in order to have a pretext for printing
Kolchak rubles. At one time in 1920, the bankers were manipulating on the London Exchange the
old Czarist rubles, Kerensky rubles and Kolchak rubles, the values of all three fluctuating
according to the movements of the Allied troops aiding Kolchak. Kolchak also was in possession
of considerable amounts of gold which had been seized by his armies. After his defeat, a trainload
of this gold disappeared in Siberia. At the Senate Hearings in 1921 on the Federal Reserve
System, it was brought out that the System had been receiving this gold. Congressman Dunbar
questioned Governor W.P.G. Harding of the Federal Reserve Board as follows:
DUNBAR: "In other words, Russia is sending a great deal of gold to the European countries,
which in turn send it to us?"
HARDING: "This is done to pay for the stuff bought in this country and to create dollar
exchange."
DUNBAR: "At the same time, that gold came from Russia through Europe?"
HARDING: "Some of it is thought to be Kolchak gold, coming through Siberia, but it is none of
the Federal Reserve Banks’ business. The Secretary of the Treasury has issued instructions to the
assay office not to take any gold which does not bear the mint mark of a friendly nation."
Just what Governor Harding meant by "a friendly nation" is not clear. In 1921, we were not at
war with any country, but Congress was already beginning to question the international gold
dealings of the Federal Reserve System. Governor Harding could very well shrug his shoulders
and say that it was none of the Federal Reserve Banks’ business where the gold came from. Gold
knows no nationality or race. The United States by law had ceased to be interested in where its
gold came from in 1906, when Secretary of the Treasury Shaw made arrangements with several of
the larger New York banks (ones in which he had interests) to purchase gold with advances of
cash from the United States Treasury, which would then purchase the gold from these banks. The
Treasury could claim that it did not know where its gold came from since their office only
registers the bank from which it made the purchase. Since 1906, the Treasury has not known
from which of the international gold merchants it was buying its gold.
The international gold dealings of the Federal Reserve System, and its active support in helping
the League of Nations to force all the nations of Europe and South America back on the gold
standard for the benefit of international gold merchants like Eugene Meyer, Jr. and Albert
Strauss, is best demonstrated by a classic incident, the sterling credit of 1925.
J.E. Darling wrote, in the English periodical, "Spectator", on January 10, 1925 that:
444
"Obviously, it is of the first importance to the United States to induce England to resume the gold
standard as early as possible. An American controlled Gold Standard, which must inevitably
result in the United States becoming the world’s supreme financial power, makes England a
tributary and satellite, and New York the world’s financial centre."
Mr. Darling fails to point out that the American people have as little to do with this as the British
people, and that resumption of the gold standard by Britain would benefit only that small group
of international gold merchants who own the world’s gold. No wonder that "Banker’s Magazine"
gleefully remarked in July, 1925 that:
"The outstanding event of the past half year in the banking world was the restoration of the gold
standard."
The First World War changed the status of the United States from that of a debtor nation to the
position of the world’s greatest creditor nation, a title formerly occupied by England. Since debt
is money, according to the Governor Marriner Eccles of the Federal Reserve Board, this also
made us the richest nation of the world. The war also caused the removal of the headquarters of
the world’s acceptance market from London to New York, and Paul Warburg became the most
powerful trade acceptance banker in the world. The mainstay of the international financiers,
however, remained the same. The gold standard was still the basis of foreign exchange, and the
small group of internationals who owned the gold controlled the monetary system of the Western
nations.
Professor Gustav Cassel wrote in 1928:
"The American dollar, not the gold standard, is the world’s monetary standard. The American
Federal Reserve Board has the power to determine the purchasing power of the dollar by making
changes in the rate of discount, and thus controls the monetary standard of the world."
If this were true, the members of the Federal Reserve Board would be the most powerful
financiers in the world. Occasionally their membership includes such influential men as Paul
Warburg or Eugene Meyer, Jr., but usually they are a rubber-stamp committee for the Federal
Advisory Council and the London bankers.
In May, 1925, the British Parliament passed the Gold Standard Act, putting Great Britain back
on the gold standard. The Federal Reserve System’s major role in this event came out on March
16, 1926, when George Seay, Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, testified before
the House Banking and Currency Committee that: "A verbal understanding confirmed by
correspondence, extended Great Britain a two hundred
445
million dollar gold loan or credit. All negotiations were conducted between Benjamin Strong,
Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Mr. Montagu Norman, Governor of the
Bank of England. The purpose of this loan was to help England get back on the gold standard,
and the loan was to be met by investment of Federal Reserve funds in bills of exchange and
foreign securities."
The Federal Reserve Bulletin of June, 1925, stated that:
"Under its arrangement with the Bank of England the Federal Reserve Bank of New York
undertakes to sell gold on credit to the Bank of England from time to time during the next two
years, but not to exceed $200,000,000 outstanding at any one time."
A two hundred million dollar gold credit had been arranged by a verbal understanding between
the international bankers, Benjamin Strong and Montagu Norman. It was apparent by this time
that the Federal Reserve System had other interests at heart than the financial needs of American
business and industry. Great Britain’s return to the gold standard was further facilitated by an
additional gold loan of a hundred million dollars from J.P. Morgan Company. Winston Churchill,
British Chancellor of the Exchequer, complained later that the cost to the British government of
this loan was $1,125,000 the first year, this sum representing the profit to J.P. Morgan Company
in that time.
The matter of changing the discount rate, for instance, has never been satisfactorily explained.
Inquiry at the Federal Reserve Board in Washington elicited the reply that "the condition of the
money market is the prime consideration behind changes in the rate." Since the money market is
in New York, it takes no imagination to deduce that New York bankers may be interested in
changes of the rate and often attempt to influence it.
Norman Lombard, in the periodical "World’s Work" writes that:
"In their consideration and disposal of proposed changes of policy, the Federal Reserve Board
should follow the procedure and ethics observed by our court of law. Suggestions that there
should be a change of rate or that the Reserve Banks should buy or sell securities may come from
anyone and with no formality or written argument. The suggestion may be made to a Governor
or
Director of the Federal Reserve System over the telephone or at his club over the luncheon table,
or it may be made in the course of a casual call on a member of the Federal Reserve Board. The
interests of the one proposing the change need not be revealed, and his name and any suggestions
446
he makes are usually kept secret. If it concerns the matter of open market operations, the public
has no inkling of the decision until the regular weekly statement appears, showing changes in the
holdings of the Federal Reserve Banks. Meanwhile, there is no public discussion, there is no
statement of the reasons for the decision, or of the names of those opposing or favoring it." The
chances of the average citizen meeting a Governor of the Federal Reserve System at his club are
also slight.
The House Hearings on Stabilization of the Purchasing Power of the Dollar in 1928 proved
conclusively that the Federal Reserve Board worked in close cooperation with the heads of
European central banks, and that the Depression of 1929-31 was planned at a secret luncheon of
the Federal Reserve Board and those heads of European central banks in 1927. The Board has
never been made responsible to the public for its decisions or actions. The constitutional checks
and balances seem not to operate in finance.
The true allegiance of the members of the Federal Reserve Board has always been to the central
bankers. The three features of the central bank, its ownership by private stockholders who
receive rent and profit for their use of the nation’s credit, absolute control of the nation’s
financial resources, and mobilization of the nation’s credit to finance foreigners, all were
demonstrated by the Federal Reserve System during the first fifteen years of its operations.
Further demonstration of the international purposes of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 is
provided by the "Edge Amendment" of December 24, 1919, which authorizes the organization of
corporations expressly for "engaging in international foreign banking and other international or
foreign financial operations, including the dealing in gold or bullion, and the holding of stock in
foreign corporations." In commenting on this amendment, E.W. Kemmerer, economist from
Princeton University, remarked that:
"The federal reserve system is proving to be a great influence in the internationalizing of
American trade and American finance."
The fact that this internationalizing of American trade and American finance has been a direct
cause for involving us in two world wars does not disturb Mr. Kemmerer. There is plenty of
evidence to show how Paul Warburg used the Federal Reserve System as the instrument for
getting trade acceptance adopted on a wide scale by American businessmen.
The use of trade acceptances, (which are the currency of international trade) by bankers and
corporations in the United States prior to 1915 was practically unknown. The rise of the Federal
Reserve System exactly parallels the increase in the use of acceptances in this country, nor is this
a coincidence. The men who wanted the Federal Reserve System were the men who set up
acceptance banks and profited by the use of acceptances.
As early as 1910, the National Monetary Commission began to issue pamphlets and other
propaganda urging bankers and businessmen in this country to adopt trade acceptances in their
447
transactions. For three years the Commission carried on this campaign, and the Aldrich Plan
included a broad provision authorizing the introduction and use of bankers’ acceptances into the
American system of commercial paper.
The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 as passed by Congress did not specifically authorize the use of
acceptances, but the Federal Reserve Board in 1915 and 1916 defined "trade acceptance",
further defined by Regulation A Series of 1920, and further defined by Series 1924. One of the
first official acts of the Board of Governors in 1914 was to grant acceptances a preferentially low
rate of discount at Federal Reserve Banks. Since acceptances were not being used in this country
at that time, no explanation of business exigency could be advanced for this action. It was
apparent that someone in power on the Board of Governors wanted the adoptance of
acceptances.
The National Bank Act of 1864, which was the determining financial authority of the United
States until November, 1914, did not permit banks to lend their credit. Consequently, the power
of banks to create money was greatly limited. We did not have a bank of issue, that is, a central
bank, which could create money. To get a central bank, the bankers caused money panic after
money panic on the business people of the United States, by shipping gold out of the country,
creating a money shortage, and then importing it back. After we got our central bank, the
Federal Reserve System, there was no longer any need for a money panic, because the banks
could create money. However, the panic as an instrument of power over the business and
financial community was used again on two important occasions, in 1920, causing the
Agricultural Depression, because state banks and trust companies had refused to join the Federal
Reserve System, and in 1929, causing the Great Depression, which centralized nearly all power in
this country in the hands of a few great trusts.
A trade acceptance is a draft drawn by the seller of goods on the purchaser, and accepted by the
purchaser, with a time of expiration stamped upon it. The use of trade acceptances in the
wholesale market supplies short-term, assured credit to carry goods in process of production,
storage, transit, and marketing. It facilitates domestic and foreign commerce. Seemingly, then,
the bankers who wished to replace the open-book account system with the trade acceptance
system were progressive men who wished to help American import-export trade. Much
propaganda was issued to that effect, but this was not really the story.
The open-book system, heretofore used entirely by American business people, allowed a discount
for cash. The acceptance system discourages the use of cash, by allowing a discount for credit.
The open-book system also allowed much easier terms of payment, with liberal extensions on the
debt. The acceptance does not allow this, since it is a short-term credit with the time-date
stamped upon it. It is out of the seller’s hands, and in the hands of a bank, usually an acceptance
bank, which does not allow any extension of time. Thus, the adoption of acceptances by American
businessmen during the 1920’s greatly facilitated the domination and swallowing up of small
business into huge trusts, which accelerated the crash of 1929.
Trade acceptances had been used to some extent in the United States before the Civil War. During
that war, exigencies of trade had destroyed the acceptance as a credit medium, and it had not
come back into favor in this country, our people preferring the simplicity and generosity of the
open-book system. Open-book accounts are a single-name commercial paper, bearing only the
name of the debtor. Acceptances are two-name paper, bearing the name of the debtor and the
creditor. Thus they became commodities to be bought and sold by banks. To the creditor, under
the open-book system, the debt is a liability. To the acceptance bank holding an acceptance, the
448
debt is an asset. The men who set up acceptance banks in this country, under the leadership of
Paul Warburg, secured control of the billions of dollars of credit existing as open accounts on the
books of American businessmen.
Governor Marriner Eccles of the Federal Reserve Board stated before the House Banking and
Currency Committee that: "Debt is the basis for the creation of money."
Large holders of trade acceptances got the use of billions of dollars worth of credit-money, besides
the rate of interest charged upon the acceptance itself. It is obvious why Paul Warburg should
have devoted so much time, money, and energy to getting acceptances adopted by this country’s
banking machinery.
On September 4, 1914, the National City Bank accepted the first time-draft drawn on a national
bank under provisions of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. This was the beginning of the end of
the open-book account system as an important factor in wholesale trade. Beverly Harris, vicepresident
of the National City Bank of New York, issued a pamphlet in 1915 stating that:
"Merchants using the open account system are usurping the functions of bankers."
In The New York Times on June 14, 1920, Paul Warburg, Chairman of the American Acceptance
Council, said:
"Unless the Federal Reserve Board puts itself heart and soul behind the untrammeled
development of acceptances as a prime investment for banks of the Federal Reserve Banks the
future safe and sound development of the system will be jeopardized."
This was a statement of the purpose of Warburg and his bunch who wanted "monetary reform"
in this country. They were out to get control of all credit in the United States, and they got it, by
means of the Federal Reserve System, the acceptance system, and the lack of concern by the
citizens.
The First World War was a boon to the introduction of trade acceptances, and the volume
jumped to four hundred million dollars in 1917, growing through the 1920s to more than a billion
dollars a year, which culminated in a high peak just before the Great Depression of 1929-31. The
Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s charts show that its use of acceptances reached a peak in
November, 1929, the month of the stock market crash, and declined sharply thereafter. The
acceptance people by then had gotten what they wanted, which was control of American business
and industry. "Fortune Magazine" in February of 1950 pointed out that:
"Volume of acceptances declined from $1,732 million in 1929 to $209 million in 1940, because
of the concentration of acceptance banking in a few hands, and the Treasury’s low-interest
policy, which made direct loans cheaper than acceptance. There has been a slight upturn since
449
the war, but it is often cheaper for large companies to finance imports from their own coffers."
In other words, the "large companies" more accurately, the great trusts, now have control of
credit and have not needed acceptances. Besides the barrage of propaganda issued by the Federal
Reserve System itself, the National Association of Credit Men, the American Bankers’
Association, and other fraternal organizations of the New York bankers devoted much time and
money to distributing acceptance propaganda. Even their flood of lectures and pamphlets proved
insufficient, and in 1919 Paul Warburg organized the American Acceptance Council, which was
devoted entirely to acceptance propaganda.
The first convention held by this association at Detroit, Michigan, on June 9, 1919, coincided
with the annual convention of the National Association of Credit Men, held there on that date, so
that "interested observers might with facility participate in the lectures and meetings of both
groups," according to a pamphlet issued by the American Acceptance Council.
Paul Warburg was elected President of this organization, and later became chairman of the
Executive Committee of the American Acceptance Council, a position which he held until his
death in 1932. The Council published lists of corporations using trade acceptances, all of them
businesses in which Kuhn, Loeb Co. or its affiliates held control. Lectures given before the
Council or by members of the Council were attractively bound and distributed free by the
National City Bank of New York to the country’s businessmen.
Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, charged in 1922
that the American Acceptance Council was exercising undue influence on the Federal Reserve
Board and called for a Congressional investigation, but Congress was not interested.
At the second annual convention of the American Acceptance Council, held in New York on
December 2, 1920, President Paul Warburg stated:
"It is a great satisfaction to report that during the year under review it was possible for the
American Acceptance Council to further develop and strengthen its relations with the Federal
Reserve Board." During the 1920s Paul Warburg, who had resigned from the Federal Reserve
Board after holding a position as Governor for a year in wartime, continued to exercise direct
personal influence on the Federal Reserve Board by meeting with the Board as President of the
Federal Advisory Council and as President of the American Acceptance Council. He was, from its
organization in 1920 until his death in 1932, Chairman of the Board of the International
Acceptance Bank of New York, the largest acceptance bank in the world. His brother, Felix M.
Warburg, also a partner in Kuhn, Loeb Co., was director of the International Acceptance Bank
and Paul’s son, James Paul Warburg, was Vice-President. Paul Warburg was also a director on
other important acceptance banks in this country, such as Westinghouse Acceptance Bank, which
were organized in the United States immediately after the World War, when the headquarters of
the international acceptance market was moved from London to New York, and Paul Warburg
became the most powerful acceptance banker in the world.
Paul Warburg became an even more legendary figure by his memorialization as "Daddy
Warbucks" in the comic strip, "Little Orphan Annie". The strip celebrated a homeless waif and
450
her dog who are adopted by "the richest man in the world", Daddy Warbucks, a takeoff on
"Warburg", who has almost magical powers and can accomplish anything by the power of his
limitless wealth. Those in the know snickered when "Annie", the musical comedy version of this
story, had a highly successful run of several years on Broadway, because the vast majority of the
audience had no idea that this was merely another Warburg operation.
It was the transference of the acceptance market from England to this country which gave rise to
Thomas Lamont’s ecstatic speech before the Academy of Political Science in 1917 that:
"The dollar, not the pound, is now the basis for international exchange."
Americans were proud to hear that, but they did not realize at what a price.
Visible proof of the undue influence of the American Acceptance Council on the Federal Reserve
Board, about which Congressman McFadden complained, is the chart showing the rate-pattern
of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York during the 1920s. The Bank’s official discount rate
follows exactly for nine years the ninety-day bankers’ acceptance rate, and the Federal Reserve
Bank of New York sets the discount rate for the rest of the Reserve Banks.
Throughout the 1920s the Board of Governors retained two of its first members, C.S. Hamlin and
Adolph C. Miller. These men found themselves careers as arbiters of the nation’s monetary policy.
Hamlin was on the Board from 1914 until 1936, when he was appointed Special Counsel to the
Board, while Miller served from 1914 until 1931. These two men were allowed to stay on the
Board so many years because they were both eminently respectable men who gave the Board a
certain prestige in the eyes of the public. During these years one important banker after another
came on the Board, served for awhile, and went on to better things. Neither Miller nor Hamlin
ever objected to anything that the New York bankers wanted. They changed the discount rate
and they performed open market operation with Government securities whenever Wall Street
wanted them to. Behind them was the figure of Paul Warburg, who exercised a continuous and
dominant influence as President of the Federal Advisory Council, on which he had such men of
common interests with himself as Winthrop Aldrich and J.P. Morgan. Warburg was never too
occupied with his duties of organizing the big international trusts to supervise the nation’s
financial structures. His influence from 1902, when he arrived in this country as immigrant from
Germany, until 1932, the year of his death, was dependent on his European alliance with the
banking cartel. Warburg’s son, James Paul Warburg, continued to exercise such influence, being
appointed Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Director of the Budget when that great man assumed office in
1933, and setting up the Office of War Information, our official propaganda agency during the
Second World War.
In The Fight for Financial Supremacy, Paul Einzig, editorial writer for the London Economist,
wrote that:
"Almost immediately after World War I a close cooperation was established between the Bank of
England and the Federal Reserve authorities, and more especially with the Federal Reserve Bank
of New York.* This cooperation was largely due to the cordial relations existing between Mr.
Montagu Norman of the Bank of England and Mr. Benjamin Strong, Governor of the Federal
451
Reserve Bank of New York until 1928. On several occasions the discount rate policy of the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York was guided by a desire to help the Bank of England. There
has been close cooperation in the fixing of discount rates between London and New York."The
collaboration between Benjamin Strong and Lord Montagu Norman is one of the greatest secrets
of the twentieth century. Benjamin Strong married the daughter of the president of Bankers
Trust in New York, and subsequently succeeded to its presidency. Carroll Quigley, in Tragedy and
Hope says: "Strong became Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York as the joint
nominee of Morgan and of Kuhn, Loeb Company in 1914."87
Lord Montagu Norman is the only man in history who had both his maternal grandfather and
his paternal grandfather serve as Governors of the Bank of England. His father was with Brown,
Shipley Company, the London Branch of Brown Brothers (now Brown Brothers Harriman).
Montagu Norman (1871-1950) came to New York to work for Brown Brothers in 1894, where he
was befriended by the Delano family, and by James Markoe, of Brown Brothers. He returned to
England, and in 1907 was named to the Court of the Bank of England. In 1912, he had a nervous
breakdown, and went to Switzerland to be treated by Jung, as was fashionable among the
powerful group which he represented.*
Lord Montagu Norman was Governor of the Bank of England from 1916 to 1944. During this
period, he participated in the central bank conferences which set up the Crash of 1929 and a
worldwide depression. In The Politics of Money by Brian Johnson, he writes, "Strong and
Norman, intimate friends, spent their holidays together at Bar Harbour and in the South of
France." Johnson says, "Norman therefore became Strong’s alter ego. . . . "Strong’s easy money
policies on the New York money market from 1925-28 were the fulfillment of his agreement with
Norman to keep New York interest rates below those of London. For the sake of international
cooperation, Strong withheld the steadying hand of high interest rates from New York until it was
too late. Easy money in New York had encouraged the surging American boom of the late 1920s,
with its fantastic heights of speculation."88
Benjamin Strong died suddenly in 1928. The New York Times obituary, Oct. 17, 1928, describes
the conference between the directors of the three great central banks in Europe in July, 1927,
"Mr. Norman, Bank of England, Strong of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, and Dr. Hjalmar
Schacht of the Reichsbank, their meeting referred to at the time as a meeting of ‘the world’s most
exclusive club’. No public reports were ever made of the foreign conferences, which were wholly
informal, but which covered many important questions of gold movements, the stability of world
trade, and world economy."
The meetings at which the future of the world’s economy are decided are always reported as
being "wholly informal", off the record, no reports made to the public, and on the rare occasions
when outraged Congressmen summon these mystery figures to testify about their activities they
merely trace the outline of steps taken, and develop no information about what was really said or
decided.
At the Senate Hearings on the Federal Reserve System in 1931, H. Parker Willis, one of the
authors and First Secretary of the Federal Reserve Board from 1914 until 1920, pointedly asked
Governor George Harrison, Strong’s successor as Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New
York:
The House Stabilization Hearings of 1928 proved conclusively that the Governors of the Federal
Reserve System had been holding conferences with heads of the big European central banks.
452
Even had the Congressmen known the details of the plot which was to culminate in the Great
Depression of 1929-31, there would have been nothing they could have done to stop it. The
international bankers who controlled gold movements could inflict their will on any country, and
the United States was as helpless as any other.
The secret meeting between the Governors of the Federal Reserve Board and the heads of the
European central banks was not called to stabilize anything. It was held to discuss the best way of
getting the gold held in the United States by the System back to Europe to force the nations of
that continent back on the gold standard. The League of Nations had not yet succeeded in doing
that, the objective for which that body was set up in the first place, because the Senate of the
United States had refused to let Woodrow Wilson betray us to an international monetary
authority. It took the Second World War and Franklin D. Roosevelt to do that. Meanwhile,
Europe had to have our gold and the Federal Reserve System gave it to them, five hundred
million dollars worth. The movement of that gold out of the United States caused the deflation of
the stock boom, the end of the business prosperity of the 1920s and the Great Depression of 1929-
31, the worst calamity which has ever befallen this nation. It is entirely logical to say that the
American people suffered that depression as a punishment for not joining the League of Nations.
The bankers knew what would happen when that five hundred million dollars worth of gold was
sent to Europe. They wanted the Depression because it put the business and finance of the United
States in their hands. The purpose of these hearings before the House Committee on Banking and
Currency in 1928 was to investigate the necessity for passing the Strong bill, presented by
Representative Strong (no relation to Benjamin, the international banker), which would have
provided that the Federal Reserve System be empowered to act to stabilize the purchasing power
of the dollar. This had been one of the promises made by Carter Glass and Woodrow Wilson
when they presented the Federal Reserve Act before Congress in 1912, and such a provision had
actually been put in the Act by Senator Robert L. Owen, but Carter Glass’ House Committee on
Banking and Currency had struck it out. The traders and speculators did not want the dollar to
become stable, because they would no longer be able to make a profit. The citizens of this country
had been led to gamble on the stock market in the 1920s because the traders had created a
nationwide condition of instability.
The Strong Bill of 1928 was defeated in Congress.
The financial situation in the United States during the 1920s was characterized by an inflation of
speculative values only. It was a trader-made situation. Prices of commodities remained low,
despite the over-pricing of securities on the exchange.
The purchasers did not expect their securities to pay dividends. The idea was to hold them awhile
and sell them at a profit. It had to stop somewhere, as Paul Warburg remarked in March, 1929.
Wall Street did not let it stop until the people had put their savings into these over-priced
securities. We had the spectacle of the President of the United States, Calvin Coolidge, acting as a
shill for the stock market operators when he recommended to the American people that they
continue buying on the market, in 1927. There had been uneasiness about the inflated condition
of the market, and the bankers showed their power by getting the President of the United States,
the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System to issue statements that brokers’ loans were not too high, and that the condition
of the stock market was sound.
Irving Fisher warned us in 1927 that the burden of stabilizing prices all over the world would
soon fall on the United States. One of the results of the Second World War was the establishment
of an International Monetary Fund to do just that. Professor Gustav Cassel remarked in the same
453
year that:
"The downward movement of prices has not been a spontaneous result of forces beyond our
control. It is the result of a policy deliberately framed to bring down prices and give a higher
value to the monetary unit."
The Democratic Party, after passing the Federal Reserve Act and leading us into the First World
War, assumed the role of an opposition party during the 1920s. They were on the outside of the
political fence, and were supported during those lean years by liberal handouts from Bernard
Baruch, according to his biography. How far outside of it they were and how little chance they
had in 1928, is shown by a plank in the official Democratic Party platform adopted at Houston on
June 28, 1928:
"The administration of the Federal Reserve System for the advantage of the stock-market
speculators should cease. It must be administered for the benefit of farmers, wage-earners,
merchants, manufacturers, and others engaged in constructive business."
This idealism insured defeat for its protagonist, Al Smith, who was nominated by Franklin D.
Roosevelt. The campaign against Al Smith also was marked by appeals to religious intolerance,
because he was a Catholic. The bankers stirred up anti-Catholic sentiment all over the country to
achieve the election of their World War I protégé, Herbert Hoover.
Instead of being used to promote the financial stability of the country, as had been promised by
Woodrow Wilson when the Act was passed, financial instability has been steadily promoted by
the Federal Reserve Board. An official memorandum issued by the Board on March 13, 1939,
stated that: "The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System opposes any bill which
proposes a stable price level."
Politically, the Federal Reserve Board was used to advance the election of the bankers’ candidates
during the 1920s. The "Literary Digest" on August 4, 1928, said, on the occasion of the Federal
Reserve Board raising the rate to five percent in a Presidential year: "This reverses the politically
desirable cheap money policy of 1927, and gives smooth conditions
on the stock market. It was attacked by the Peoples’ Lobby of Washington, D.C. which said that
‘This increase at a time when farmers needed cheap money to finance the harvesting of their
crops was a direct blow at the farmers, who had begun to get back on their feet after the
Agricultural Depression of 1920-21.
"The New York World" said on that occasion:
454
"Criticism of Federal Reserve Board policy by many investors is not based on its attempt to
deflate the stock market, but on the charge that the Board itself, by last year’s policy, is
completely responsible for such stock market inflation as exists."
A damning survey of the Federal Reserve System’s first fifteen years appears in the "North
American Review" of May, 1929, by H. Parker Willis, professional economist who was one of the
authors of the Act and First Secretary of the Board from 1914 until 1920. He expresses complete
disillusionment.
"My first talk with President-elect Wilson was in 1912. Our conversation related entirely to
banking reform. I asked whether he felt confident we could secure the administration of a
suitable law and how we should get it applied and enforced. He answered: ‘We must rely on
American business idealism.’ He sought for something which could be trusted to afford
opportunity to American Idealism. It did serve to finance the World War and to revise American
banking practices. The element of idealism that the President prescribed and believed we could
get on the principle of noblesse oblige from American bankers and businessmen was not there.
Since the inauguration of the Federal Reserve Act we have suffered one of the most serious
financial depressions and revolutions ever known in our history, that of 1920-21. We have seen
our agriculture pass through a long period of suffering and even of revolution, during which one
million farmers left their farms, due to difficulties with the price of land and the odd status of
credit conditions. We have suffered the most extensive era of bank failures ever known in this
country. Forty-five hundred banks have closed their doors since the Reserve System began
functioning. In some Western towns there have been times when all banks in that community
failed, and given banks have failed over and over again. There has been little difference in
liability to failure between members and non-members of the Federal Reserve System.
"Wilson’s choice of the first members of the Federal Reserve Board was not especially happy.
They represented a composite group chosen for the express purpose of placating this, that, or the
455
other big interest. It was not strange that appointees used their places to pay debts. When the
Board was considering a resolution to the effect that future members of the reserve system should
be appointed solely on merit, because of the demonstrated incompetence of some of their number.
Comptroller John Skelton Williams moved to strike out the word ‘solely’ and in this he was
sustained by the Board. The inclusion of certain elements (Warburg, Strauss, etc.) in the Board
gave an opportunity for catering to special interests that was to prove
disastrous later on.
"President Wilson erred, as he often erred, in supposing that the holding of an important office
would transform an incumbent and revivify his patriotism. The Reserve Board reached the low
ebb of the Wilson period with the appointment of a member who was chosen for his ability to get
delegates for a Democratic candidate for the Presidency. However, this level was not the dregs
reached under President Harding. He appointed an old crony, D.R. Crissinger, as Governor of the
Board, and named several other super-serviceable politicians to other places. Before his death he
had done his utmost to debauch the whole undertaking. The System has gone steadily downhill
ever since.
"Reserve Banks had hardly assumed their first form when it became apparent that local bankers
had sought to use them as a means of taking care of ‘favorite sons’, that is, persons who had by
common consent become a kind of general charge upon the banking community, or inefficients
of various kinds. When reserve directors were to be chosen, the country bankers often refused to
vote, or, when they voted, cast their ballots as directed by city correspondents. In these
circumstances popular or democratic control of reserve banks was out of the question.
Reasonable
efficiency might have been secured if honest men, recognizing their public duty, had assumed
power. If such men existed, they did not get on the Federal Reserve Board. In one reserve bank
today the chief management is in the hands of a man who never did a day’s actual banking in his
life, while in another reserve institution both Governor and Chairman are the former heads of
456
now defunct banks. They naturally have a high failure record in their district. In a majority of
districts the standard of performance as judged by good banking standards is disgracefully low
among reserve executive officials. The policy of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia is
known in the System as the ‘Friends and Relatives Banks.’
"It was while making war profits in considerable amounts that someone conceived the idea of
using the profits to provide themselves with phenomenally costly buildings. Today the Reserve
Banks must keep a full billion dollars of their money constantly at work merely to pay their own
expenses in normal times.
"The best illustration of what the System has done and not done is offered by the experience
which the country was having with speculation, in May, 1929. Three years prior to that, the
present bull market was just getting under way. In the autumn of 1926 a group of bankers,
among
them one of world famous name, were sitting at a table in a Washington hotel. One of them
raised the question whether the low discount rates of the System were not likely to encourage
speculation.
"‘Yes’, replied the famous banker, ‘they will, but that cannot be helped. It is the price we must
pay for helping Europe.’
"It may well be questioned whether the encouragement of speculation by the Board has been the
price paid for helping Europe or whether it is the price paid to induce a certain class of financiers
to help Europe, but in either case
European conditions should not have had anything to do with the Board’s discount policy. The
fact of the matter is that the Federal Reserve Banks do not come into contact with the
community.
"The ‘small man’ from Maine to Texas has gradually been led to invest his savings in the stock
market, with the result that the rising tide of speculation, transacted at a higher and higher rate
of speed, has swept over the legitimate business of the country.
"In March, 1928, Roy A. Young, Governor of the Board, was called before a Senate committee.
‘Do you think the brokers’ loans are too high?", he was asked.
457
"‘I am not prepared to say whether brokers’ loans are too high or too low,’ he replied, ‘but I am
sure they are safely and conservatively made.’
"Secretary of the Treasury Mellon in a formal statement assured the country that they were not
too high, and Coolidge, using material supplied him by the Federal Reserve Board, made a plain
statement to the country that they were not too high. The Federal Reserve Board, charged with
the duty of protecting the interests of the average man, thus did its utmost to assure the average
man that he should feel no alarm about his savings. Yet the Federal Reserve Board issued on
February 2, 1929, a letter addressed to the Reserve Bank Directors cautioning them against grave
danger of further speculation.
"What could be expected from a group of men such as composed the Board, a set of men who
were solely interested in standing from under when there was any danger of friction, displaying a
bovine and canine appetite for credit and praise, while eager only to ‘stand in’ with the ‘big men’
whom they know as the masters of American finance and banking?"
H. Parker Willis omitted any reference to Lord Montague Norman and the machinations of the
Bank of England which were about to result in the Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression.
R.G. Hawtrey, the English economist, said, in the March, 1926 American Economic Review:
"When external investment outstrips the supply of general savings the investment market must
carry the excess with money borrowed from the banks. A remedy is control of credit by a rise in
bank rate."
The Federal Reserve Board applied this control of credit, but not in 1926, nor as a remedial
measure. It was not applied until 1929, and then the rate was raised as a punitive measure, to
freeze out everybody but the big trusts.
Professor Cassel, in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, August 1928, wrote that:
"The fact that a central bank fails to raise its bank rate in accordance with the actual situation of
the capital market very much increases the strength of the cyclical movement of trade, with all its
pernicious effects on social economy. A rational regulation of the bank rate lies in our hands, and
may be accomplished only if we perceive its importance and decide to go in for such a policy.
With a bank rate regulated on these lines the conditions for the development of trade cycles
would be radically altered, and indeed, our familiar trade cycles would be a thing of the past."
458
This is the most authoritative premise yet made relating that our business depressions are
artificially precipitated. The occurrence of the Panic of 1907, the Agricultural Depression of 1920,
and the Great Depression of 1929, all three in good crop years and in periods of national
prosperity, suggests that premise is not guesswork. Lord Maynard Keynes pointed out that most
theories of the business cycle failed to relate their analysis adequately to the money mechanism.
Any survey or study of a depression which failed to list such factors as gold movements and
pressures on foreign exchange would be worthless, yet American economists have always dodged
this issue.
The League of Nations had achieved its goal of getting the nations of Europe back on the gold
standard by 1928, but three-fourths of the world’s gold was in France and the United States. The
problem was how to get that gold to countries which needed it as a basis for money and credit.
The answer was action by the Federal Reserve System. Following the secret meeting of the
Federal Reserve Board and the heads of the foreign central banks in 1927, the Federal Reserve
Banks in a few months doubled their holdings of Government securities and acceptances, which
resulted in the exportation of five hundred million dollars in gold in that year. The System’s
market activities forced the rates of call money down on the Stock Exchange, and forced gold out
of the country. Foreigners also took this opportunity to purchase heavily in Government
securities because of the low call money rate.
"The agreement between the Bank of England and the Washington Federal Reserve authorities
many months ago was that we would force the export of 725 million of gold by reducing the bank
rates here, thus helping the stabilization of France and Europe and putting France on a gold
basis."89 (April 20, 1928)
On February 6, 1929, Mr. Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of England, came to
Washington and had a conference with Andrew Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury. Immediately
after that mysterious visit, the Federal Reserve Board abruptly changed its policy and pursued a
high discount rate policy, abandoning the cheap money policy which it had inaugurated in 1927
after Mr. Norman’s other visit. The stock market crash and the deflation of the American
people’s financial structure was scheduled to take place in March. To get the ball rolling, Paul
Warburg gave the official warning to the traders to get out of the market. In his annual report to
the stockholders of his International Acceptance Bank, in March, 1929, Mr. Warburg said:
"If the orgies of unrestrained speculation are permitted to spread, the ultimate collapse is certain
not only to affect the speculators themselves, but to bring about a general depression involving
the entire country."
During three years of "unrestrained speculation", Mr. Warburg had not seen fit to make any
remarks about the condition of the Stock Exchange. A friendly organ, The New York Times, not
only gave the report two columns on its editorial page, but editorially commented on the wisdom
and profundity of Mr. Warburg’s observations. Mr. Warburg’s concern was genuine, for the stock
market bubble had gone much farther than it had been intended to go, and the bankers feared
the consequences if the people realized what was going on. When this report in The New York
Times started a sudden wave of selling on the Exchange, the bankers grew panicky, and it was
459
decided to ease the market somewhat. Accordingly, Warburg’s National City Bank rushed
twenty-five million dollars in cash to the call money market, and postponed the day of the crash.
The revelation of the Federal Reserve Board’s final decision to trigger the Crash of 1929 appears,
amazingly enough, in The New York Times. On April 20, 1929, the Times headlined, "Federal
Advisory Council Mystery Meeting in Washington. Resolutions were adopted by the council and
transmitted to the board, but their purpose was closely guarded. An atmosphere of deep mystery
was thrown about the proceedings both by the board and the council. Every effort was made to
guard the proceedings of this extraordinary session. Evasive replies were given to newspaper
correspondents."
Only the innermost council of "The London Connection" knew that it had been decided at this
"mystery meeting" to bring down the curtain on the greatest speculative boom in American
history. Those in the know began to sell off all speculative stocks and put their money in
government bonds. Those who were not privy to this secret information, and they included some
of the wealthiest men in America, continued to hold their speculative stocks and lost everything
they had.
In FDR, My Exploited Father-in-Law, Col. Curtis B. Dall, who was a broker on Wall Street at
that time, writes of the Crash, "Actually it was the calculated ‘shearing’ of the public by the
World Money-Powers, triggered by the planned sudden shortage of the supply of call money in
the New York money market."90 Overnight, the Federal Reserve System had raised the call rate
to twenty percent. Unable to meet this rate, the speculators’ only alternative was to jump out of
windows.
The New York Federal Reserve Bank rate, which dictated the national interest rate, went to six
percent on November 1, 1929. After the investors had been bankrupted, it dropped to one and
one-half percent on May 8, 1931. Congressman Wright Patman in "A Primer On Money", says
that the money supply decreased by eight billion dollars from 1929 to 1933, causing 11,630 banks
of the total of 26,401 in the United States to go bankrupt and close their doors.
The Federal Reserve Board had already warned the stockholders of the Federal Reserve Banks to
get out of the Market, on February 6, 1929, but it had not bothered to say anything to the rest of
the people. Nobody knew what was going on except the Wall Street bankers who were running
the show. Gold movements were completely unreliable. The Quarterly Journal of Economics
noted that:
"The question has been raised, not only in this country, but in several European
countries, as to whether customs statistics record with accuracy the movements of
precious metals, and, when investigation has been made, confidence in such
figures has been weakened rather than strengthened. Any movement between
France and England, for instance, should be recorded in each country, but such
comparison shows an average yearly discrepancy of fifty million francs for France
and eighty-five million francs for England. These enormous discrepancies are not
460
accounted for."
The Right Honorable Reginald McKenna stated that: "Study of the relations between changes in
gold stock and movement in price levels shows what
should be very obvious, but is by no means recognized, that the gold standard is in no sense
automatic in operation. The gold standard can be, and is, usefully managed and controlled for
the
benefit of a small group of international traders."
In August 1929, the Federal Reserve Board raised the rate to six percent. The Bank of England in
the next month raised its rate from five and one-half percent to six and one-half percent. Dr.
Friday in the September, 1929, issue of Review of Reviews, could find no reason for the Board’s
action:
"The Federal Reserve statement for August 7, 1929, shows that signs of inadequacy for autumn
requirements do not exist. Gold resources are considerably more than the previous year, and gold
continues to move in, to the financial embarrassment of Germany and England. The reasons for
the Board’s action must be sought elsewhere. The public has been given only the hint that ‘This
problem has presented difficulties because of certain peculiar conditions’. Every reason which
Governor Young advanced for lowering the bank rate last year exists now. Increasing the rate
means that not only is there danger of drawing gold from abroad, but imports of the yellow metal
have been in progress for the last four months. To do anything to accentuate this is to take the
responsibility for bringing on a world-wide credit deflation."
Thus we find that not only was the Federal Reserve System responsible for the First World War,
which it made possible by enabling the United States to finance the Allies, but its policies brought
on the world-wide depression of 1929-31. Governor Adolph C. Miller stated at the Senate
Investigation of the Federal Reserve Board in 1931 that:
"If we had had no Federal Reserve System, I do not think we would have had as bad a
speculative
situation as we had, to begin with."
Carter Glass replied, "You have made it clear that the Federal Reserve Board provided a terrific
credit expansion by these open market transactions."
Emmanuel Goldenweiser said, "In 1928-29 the Federal Board was engaged in an attempt to
461
restrain the rapid increase in security loans and in stock market speculation. The continuity of
this policy of restraint, however, was interrupted by reduction in bill rates in the autumn of 1928
and the summer of 1929."
Both J.P. Morgan and Kuhn, Loeb Co. had "preferred lists" of men to whom they sent advance
announcements of profitable stocks. The men on these preferred lists were allowed to purchase
these stocks at cost, that is, anywhere from 2 to 15 points a share less than they were sold to the
public. The men on these lists were fellow bankers, prominent industrialists, powerful city
politicians, national Committeemen of the Republican and Democratic Parties, and rulers of
foreign countries. The men on these lists were notified of the coming crash, and sold all but socalled
gilt-edged stocks, General Motors, Dupont, etc. The prices on these stocks also sank to
record lows, but they came up soon afterwards. How the big bankers operated in 1929 is revealed
by a Newsweek story on May 30, 1936, when a Roosevelt appointee, Ralph W. Morrison, resigned
from the Federal Reserve Board:
"The consensus of opinion is that the Federal Reserve Board has lost an able man. He sold his
Texas utilities stock to Insull for ten million dollars, and in 1929 called a meeting and ordered
his banks to close out all security loans by September 1. As a result, they rode through the
depression with flying colors."
Predictably enough, all of the big bankers rode through the depression "with flying colors." The
people who suffered were the workers and farmers who had invested their money in get-rich
stocks, after the President of the United States, Calvin Coolidge, and the Secretary of the
Treasury, Andrew Mellon, had persuaded them to do it.
There had been some warnings of the approaching crash in England, which American
newspapers never saw. The London Statist on May 25, 1929 said:
"The banking authorities in the United States apparently want a business panic to curb
speculation."
The London Economist on May 11, 1929, said:
"The events of the past year have seen the beginnings of a new technique, which, if maintained
and developed, may succeed in ‘rationing the speculator without injuring the trader.’"
Governor Charles S. Hamlin quoted this statement at the Senate hearings in 1931 and said, in
corroboration of it:
"That was the feeling of certain members of the Board, to remove Federal Reserve credit from
the
speculator without injuring the trader."
Governor Hamlin did not bother to point out that the "speculators" he was out to break were the
462
school-teachers and small town merchants who had put their savings into the stock market, or
that the "traders" he was trying to protect were the big Wall Street operators, Bernard Baruch
and Paul Warburg.
When the Federal Reserve Bank of New York raised its rate to six percent on August 9, 1929,
market conditions began which culminated in tremendous selling orders from October 24 into
November, which wiped out a hundred and sixty billion dollars worth of security values. That
was a hundred and sixty billions which the American citizens had one month and did not have
the next. Some idea of the calamity may be had if we remember that our enormous outlay of
money and goods in the Second World War amounted to not much more than two hundred
billions of dollars, and a great deal of that remained as negotiable securities in the national debt.
The stock market crash is the greatest misfortune which the United States has ever suffered.
The Academy of Political Science of Columbia University in its annual meeting in January, 1930,
held a post-mortem on the Crash of 1929. Vice- President Paul Warburg was to have presided,
and Director Ogden Mills was to have played an important part in the discussion. However, these
two gentlemen did not show up. Professor Oliver M.W. Sprague of Harvard University remarked
of the crash:
"We have here a beautiful laboratory case of the stock market’s dropping apparently from its
own
weight."
It was pointed out that there was no exhaustion of credit, as in 1893, nor any currency famine, as
in the Panic of 1907, when clearing-house certificates were resorted to, nor a collapse of
commodity prices, as in 1920. What then, had caused the crash? The people had purchased
stocks at high prices and expected the prices to continue to rise. The prices had to come down,
and they did. It was obvious to the economists and bankers gathered over their brandy and
cigars at the Hotel Astor that the people were at fault. Certainly the people had made a mistake
in buying over-priced securities, but they had been talked into it by every leading citizen from the
President of the United States on down. Every magazine of national circulation, every big
newspaper, and every prominent banker, economist, and politician, had joined in the big
confidence game of urging people to buy those over-priced securities. When the Federal Reserve
Bank of New York raised its rate to six percent, in August 1929, people began to get out of the
market, and it turned into a panic which drove the prices of securities down far below their
natural levels. As in previous panics, this enabled both Wall Street and foreign operators in the
know to pick up "blue-chip" and gilt-edged" securities for a fraction of their real value.
The Crash of 1929 also saw the formation of giant holding companies which picked up these
cheap bonds and securities, such as the Marine Midland Corporation, the Lehman Corporation,
and the Equity Corporation. In 1929 J.P. Morgan Company organized the giant food trust,
Standard Brands. There was an unequaled opportunity for trust operators to enlarge and
consolidate their holdings.
Emmanuel Goldenweiser, director of research for the Federal Reserve System, said, in 1947:
"It is clear in retrospect that the Board should have ignored the speculative expansion and
463
allowed it to collapse of its own weight."
This admission of error eighteen years after the event was small comfort to the people who lost
their savings in the Crash.
The Wall Street Crash of 1929 was the beginning of a world-wide credit deflation which lasted
through 1932, and from which the Western democracies did not recover until they began to
rearm for the Second World War. During this depression, the trust operators achieved further
control by their backing of three international swindlers, The Van Sweringen brothers, Samuel
Insull, and Ivar Kreuger. These men pyramided billions of dollars worth of securities to fantastic
heights. The bankers who promoted them and floated their stock issue could have stopped them
at any time, by calling loans of less than a million dollars, but they let these men go on until they
had incorporated many industrial and financial properties into holding companies, which the
banks then took over for nothing. Insull piled up public utility holdings throughout the Middle
West, which the banks got for a fraction of their worth. Ivar Kreuger was backed by Lee
Higginson Company, supposedly one of the nation’s most reputable banking houses. The
Saturday Evening Post called him "more than a financial titan", and the English review
Fortnightly said, in an article written December 1931, under the title, "A Chapter in Constructive
Finance": "It is as a financial irrigator that Kreuger has become of such vital importance to
Europe."*
"Financial irrigator" we may remember, was the title bestowed upon Jacob Schiff by Newsweek
Magazine, when it described how Schiff had bought up American railroads with Rothschild’s
money.
The New Republic remarked on January 25th, 1933, when it commented on the fact that Lee
Higginson Company had handled Kreuger and Toll Securities on the American market:
"Three-quarters of a billion dollars was made away with. Who was able to dictate to the French
police to keep secret the news of this extremely important suicide for some hours, during which
somebody sold Kreuger securities in large amounts, thus getting out of the market before the
debacle?"
The Federal Reserve Board could have checked the enormous credit expansion of Insull and
Kreuger by investigating the security on which their loans were being made, but the Governors
never made any examination of the activities of these men.
The modern bank with the credit facilities it affords, gives an opportunity which had not
previously existed for such operators as Kreuger to make an appearance of abundant capital by
the aid of borrowed capital. This enables the speculator to buy securities with securities. The only
limit to the amount he can corner is the amount to which the banks will back him, and, if a
speculator is being promoted by a reputable banking house, as Kreuger was promoted by Lee
Higginson Company, the only way he could be stopped would be by an investigation of his actual
financial resources, which in Kreuger’s case would have proved to be nil.
The leader of the American people during the Crash of 1929 and the subsequent depression was
464
Herbert Hoover. After the first break of the market (the five billion dollars in security values
which disappeared on October 24, 1929) President Hoover said:
"The fundamental business of the country, that is, production and distribution of commodities, is
on a sound and prosperous basis."
His Secretary of the Treasury, Andrew Mellon, stated on December 25, 1929, that:
"The Government’s business is in sound condition."
His own business, the Aluminum Company of America, apparently was not doing so well, for he
had reduced the wages of all employees by ten percent.
The New York Times reported on April 7, 1931, "Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of
England, conferred with the Federal Reserve Board here today. Mellon, Meyer, and George L.
Harrison, Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, were present."
The London Connection had sent Norman over this time to ensure that the Great Depression was
proceeding according to schedule. Congressman Louis McFadden had complained, as reported in
The New York Times, July 4, 1930, "Commodity prices are being reduced to 1913 levels. Wages
are being reduced by the labor surplus of four million unemployed. The Morgan control of the
Federal Reserve System is exercised through control of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York,
the mediocre representation and acquiescence of the Federal Reserve Board in Washington." As
the depression deepened, the trust’s lock on the American economy strengthened, but no finger
was pointed at the parties who were controlling the system. In 1930 Herbert Hoover appointed to
the Federal Reserve Board an old friend from World War I days, Eugene Meyer, Jr., who had a
long record of public service dating from 1915, when he went into partnership with Bernard
Baruch in the Alaska-Juneau Gold Mining Company. Meyer had been a Special Advisor to the
War Industries Board on Non-Ferrous Metals (gold, silver, etc.); Special Assistant to the
Secretary of War on aircraft production; in 1917 he was appointed to the National Committee on
War Savings, and was made Chairman of the War Finance Corporation from 1918-1926. He then
was appointed chairman of the Federal Farm Loan Board from 1927-29. Hoover put him on the
Federal Reserve Board in 1930, and Franklin D. Roosevelt created the Reconstruction Bank for
Reconstruction and Development in 1946. Meyer must have been a man of exceptional ability to
hold so many important posts. However, there were some Senators who did not believe he should
hold any Government office, because of his family background as an international gold dealer
and his mysterious operations in billions of dollars of Government securities in the First World
War. Consequently, the Senate held Hearings to determine whether Meyer ought to be on the
Federal Reserve Board.
At these Hearings, Representative Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and
Currency Committee, said:
"Eugene Meyer, Jr. has had his own crowd with him in the government since he started in 1917.
465
His War Finance Corporation personnel took over the Federal Farm Loan System, and almost
immediately afterwards, the Kansas City Join Stock Land Bank and the Ohio Joint Stock Land
Bank failed."
REPRESENTATIVE RAINEY: Mr. Meyer, when he nominally resigned as head of the Federal
Farm Loan Board, did not really cease his activities there. He left behind him an able body of
wreckers. They are continuing his policies and consulting with him. Before his appointment, he
was frequently in consultation with Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Dewey. Just before his
appointment, the Chicago Joint Land Stock Bank, the Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank, the Kansas
City Joint Land Stock Bank, and the Des Moines Land Bank were all functioning. Their bonds
were selling at par. The then farm commissioner had an understanding with Secretary Dewey
that nothing would be done without the consent and approval of the Federal Farm Loan Board.
A few days afterwards, United States Marshals, with pistols strapped at their sides, and
sometimes with drawn pistols, entered these five banks and demanded that the banks be turned
over to them. Word went out all over the United States, through the newspapers, as to what had
happened, and these banks were ruined. This led to the breach with the old Federal Farm Loan
Board, and to the resignation of three of its members, and the appointment of Mr. Meyer to be
head of that Board.
SENATOR CAREY: Who authorized the marshals to take over the banks?
REP. RAINEY: Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Dewey. That started the ruin of all these rural
banks, and the Gianninis bought them up in great numbers."
World’s Work of February 1931, said:
"When the World War began for us in 1917, Mr. Eugene Meyer, Jr. was among the first to be
called to Washington. In April, 1918, President Wilson named him Director of the War Finance
Corporation. This corporation loaned out 700 million dollars to banking and financial
institutions."
The Senate Hearings on Eugene Meyer, Jr. continued:
REPRESENTATIVE MCFADDEN: "Lazard Freres, the international banking house of New
York and Paris, was a Meyer family banking house. It frequently figures in imports and exports
of gold, and one of the important functions of the Federal Reserve System has to do with gold
movements in the maintenance of its own operations. In looking over the minutes of the hearing
we had last Thursday, Senator Fletcher had asked Mr. Meyer, ‘Have you any connections with
international banking?’ Mr. Meyer had answered, ‘Me? Not personally.’ This last question and
answer do not appear in the stenographic transcript. Senator Fletcher remembers asking the
question and the answer. It is an odd omission.
SENATOR BROOKHART: I understand that Mr. Meyer looked it over for corrections.
466
REPRESENTATIVE MCFADDEN: Mr. Meyer is a brother-in-law of George Blumenthal, a
member of the firm of J.P. Morgan Company, which represents the Rothschild interests. He also
is a liaison officer between the French Government and J.P. Morgan. Edmund Platt, who had
eight years to go on a term of ten years as Governor of the Federal Reserve Board, resigned to
make room for Mr. Meyer. Platt was given a Vice-Presidency of Marine Midland Corporation by
Meyer’s brother-in-law Alfred A. Cook. Eugene Meyer, Jr. as head of the War Finance
Corporation, engaged in the placing of two billion dollars in Government securities, placed many
of those orders first with the banking house now located at 14 Wall Street in the name of Eugene
Meyer, Jr. Mr. Meyer is now a large stockholder in the Allied Chemical Corporation. I call your
attention to House Report No. 1635, 68th Congress, 2nd Session, which reveals that at least
twenty-four million dollars in bonds were duplicated. Ten billion dollars worth of bonds
surreptitiously destroyed. Our committee on Banking and Currency found the records of the War
Finance Corporation under Eugene Meyer, Jr. extremely faulty. While the books were being
brought before our committee by the people who were custodians of them and taken back to the
Treasury at night, the committee discovered that alterations were being made in the permanent
records."
The record of public service did not prevent Eugene Meyer, Jr. from continuing to serve the
American people on the Federal Reserve Board, as Chairman of the Reconstruction Finance
Corporation, and as head of the International Bank.
President Rand, of the Marine Midland Corporation, questioned about his sudden desire for the
services of Edmund Platt, said:
"We pay Mr. Platt $22,000 a year, and we took his secretary over, of course." This meant another
five thousand a year.
Senator Brookhart showed that Eugene Meyer, Jr. administered the Federal Farm Loan Board
against the interests of the American farmer, saying:
"Mr. Meyer never loaned more than 180 million dollars of the capital stock of 500 million dollars
of the farm loan board, so that in aiding the farmers he was not even able to use half of the
capital."
MR. MEYER: Senator Kenyon wrote me a letter which showed that I cooperated with great
advantage to the people of Iowa.
SENATOR BROOKHART: "You went out and took the opposite side from the Wall Street
crowd. They always send somebody out to do that. I have not yet discovered in your statements
much interest in making loans to the farmers at large, or any real effort to help their condition. In
your two years as head of the Federal Farm Loan Board you made very few loans compared to
your capital. You loaned only one-eighth of the demand, according to your own statement."
Despite the damning evidence uncovered at these Senate Hearings, Eugene Meyer, Jr. remained
on the Federal Reserve Board.
During this tragic period, chairman Louis McFadden of the House Banking and Currency
467
Committee continued his lone crusade against the "London Connection" which had wrecked the
nation. On June 10, 1932, McFadden addressed the House of Representatives:
"Some people think the Federal Reserve banks are United States Government institutions. They
are not government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people
of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers. The Federal
Reserve banks are
the agents of the foreign central banks. Henry Ford has said, ‘The one aim of these financiers is
world control by the creation of inextinguishable debts.’ The truth is the Federal Reserve Board
has usurped the Government of the United States by the arrogant credit monopoly which
operates
the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks."
On January 13, 1932, McFadden had introduced a resolution indicting the Federal Reserve
Board of Governors for "Criminal Conspiracy":
"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with the crime of having treasonably conspired
and acted against the peace and security of the United States and having treasonably conspired
to
destroy constitutional government in the United States. Resolved, that the Committee on the
Judiciary is authorized and directed as a whole or by subcommittee to investigate the official
conduct of the Federal Reserve Board and agents to determine whether, in the opinion of the said
committee, they have been guilty of any high crime or misdemeanour which in the contemplation
of the Constitution requires the interposition of the Constitutional powers of the House."
No action was taken on this Resolution. McFadden came back on December 13, 1932 with a
motion to impeach President Herbert Hoover. Only five Congressmen stood with him on this, and
the resolution failed. The Republican majority leader of the House remarked, "Louis T.
McFadden is now politically dead."
On May 23, 1933, McFadden introduced House Resolution No. 158, Articles of Impeachment
against the Secretary of the Treasury, two Assistant Secretaries of the Treasury, the Federal
Reserve Board of Governors, and officers and directors of the Federal Reserve Banks for their
guilt and collusion in causing the Great Depression. "I charge them with having unlawfully taken
over 80 billion dollars from the United States Government in the year 1928, the said unlawful
taking consisting of the unlawful recreation of claims against the United States Treasury to the
468
extent of over 80 billion dollars in the year 1928, and in each year subsequent, and by having
robbed the United States Government and the people of the United States by their theft and sale
of the gold reserve of the United States."
The Resolution never reached the floor. A whispering campaign that McFadden was insane swept
Washington, and in the next Congressional elections, he was overwhelmingly defeated by
thousands of dollars poured into his home district of Canton, Pennsylvania.
In 1932, the American people elected Franklin D. Roosevelt President of the United States. This
was hailed as the freeing of the American people from the evil influence which had brought on the
Great Depres- sion, the ending of Wall Street domination, and the disappearance of the banker
from Washington.
Roosevelt owed his political career to a fortuitous circumstance. As Assistant Secretary of the
Navy during World War I, because of old school ties, he had intervened to prevent prosecution of
a large ring of homosexuals in the Navy which included several Groton and Harvard chums. This
brought him to the favorable appreciation of a wealthy international homosexual set which
travelled back and forth between New York and Paris, and which was presided over by Bessie
Marbury, of a very old and prominent New York family. Bessie’s "wife", who lived with her for a
number of years, was Elsie de Wolfe, later Lady Mendl in a "mariage de convenance", the arbiter
of the international set. They recruited J.P. Morgan’s youngest daughter, Anne Morgan, into
their circle, and used her fortune to restore the Villa Trianon in Paris, which became their
headquarters. During World War I, it was used as a hospital. Bessie Marbury expected to be
awarded the Legion of Honor by the French Government as a reward, but J.P. Morgan, Jr., who
despised her for corrupting his youngest sister, requested the French Government to withhold the
award, which they did. Smarting from this rebuff, Bessie Marbury threw herself into politics, and
became a power in the Democratic National Party. She had also recruited Eleanor Roosevelt into
her circle, and, during a visit to Hyde Park, Eleanor confided that she was desperate to find
something for "poor Franklin" to do, as he was confined to a wheelchair, and was very depressed.
"I know what we’ll do," exclaimed Bessie, "We’ll run him for Governor of New York!" Because
of her power, she succeeded in this goal, and Roosevelt later became President.
One of the men Roosevelt brought down from New York with him as a Special Advisor to the
Treasury was Earl Bailie of J & W Seligman Company, who had become notorious as the man
who handed the $415,000 bribe to Juan Leguia, son of the President of Peru, in order to get the
President to accept a loan from J & W Seligman Company. There was a great deal of criticism of
this appointment, and Mr. Roosevelt, in keeping with his new role as defender of the people, sent
Earl Bailie back to @bringing in New York.
Franklin D. Roosevelt himself was an international banker of ill repute, having floated large
issues of foreign bonds in this country in the 1920s. These bonds defaulted, and our citizens lost
millions of dollars, but they still wanted Mr. Roosevelt as President. The New York Directory of
Directors lists Mr. Roosevelt as President and Director of United European Investors, Ltd., in
1923 and 1924, which floated many millions of German marks in this country, all of which
defaulted. Poor’s Directory of Directors lists him as a director of The International Germanic
Trust Company in 1928. Franklin D. Roosevelt was also an advisor to the Federal International
Banking Corporation, an Anglo-American outfit dealing in foreign securities in the United States.
Roosevelt’s law firm of Roosevelt and O’Connor during the 1920s represented many
469
international corporations. His law partner, Basil O’Connor, was a director in the following
corporations:
Cuban-American Manganese Corporation, Venezuela-Mexican Oil Corporation, West Indies
Sugar Corporation, American Reserve Insurance Corporation, Warm Springs Foundation. He
was director in other corporations, and later head of the American Red Cross.
When Franklin D. Roosevelt took office as President of the United States, he appointed as
Director of the Budget James Paul Warburg, son of Paul Warburg, and Vice President of the
International Acceptance Bank and other corporations. Roosevelt appointed as Secretary of the
Treasury W.H. Woodin, one of the biggest industrialists in the country, Director of the American
Car Foundry Company and numerous other locomotive works, Remington Arms, The Cuba
Company, Consolidated Cuba Railroads, and other big corporations. Woodin was later replaced
by Henry Morgenthau, Jr., son of the Harlem real estate operator who had helped put Woodrow
Wilson in the White House. With such a crew as this, Roosevelt’s promises of radical social
changes showed little likelihood of fulfillment. One of the first things he did was to declare a
bankers’ moratorium, to help the bankers get their records in order.
World’s Work says:
"Congress has left Charles G. Dawes and Eugene Meyer, Jr. free to appraise, by their own
methods, the security which prospective borrowers of the two billion dollar capital may offer."
Roosevelt also set up the Securities Exchange Commission, to see to it that no new faces got into
the Wall Street gang, which caused the following colloquy in Congress:
REPRESENTATIVE WOLCOTT: At hearings before this committee in 1933, the economists
showed us charts which proved beyond all doubt that the dollar value commodities followed the
price level of gold. It did not, did it?
LEON HENDERSON: No.
REPRESENTATIVE GIFFORD: Wasn’t Joe Kennedy put in [as Chairman of the Securities
Exchange Committee] by President Roosevelt because he was sympathetic with big business?
LEON HENDERSON: I think so.
Paul Einzig pointed out in 1935 that: "President Roosevelt was the first to declare himself openly
in favor of a monetary policy aiming
at a deliberately engineered rise in prices. In a negative sense his policy was successful. Between
1933 and 1935 he succeeded in reducing private indebtedness, but this was done at the cost of
increasing public indebtedness."
In other words, he eased the burden of debts off of the rich onto the poor, since the rich are few
and the poor many.
470
Senator Robert L. Owen, testifying before the House Committee on Banking and Currency in
1938, said:
"I wrote into the bill which was introduced by me in the Senate on June 26, 1913, a provision
that the powers of the System should be employed to promote a stable price level, which meant a
dollar of stable purchasing, debt-paying power. It was stricken out. The powerful money interests
got control of the Federal Reserve Board through Mr. Paul Warburg, Mr. Albert Strauss, and Mr.
Adolph C. Miller and they were able to have that secret meeting of May 18, 1920, and bring
about a contraction of credit so violent it threw five million people out of employment. In 1920
that Reserve Board deliberately caused the Panic of 1921. The same people, unrestrained in the
stock market, expanding credit to a great excess between 1926 and 1929, raised the price of
stocks to a fantastic point where they could not possibly earn dividends, and when the people
realized this, they tried to get out, resulting in the Crash of October 24, 1929."
Senator Owen did not go into the question of whether the Federal Reserve Board could be held
responsible to the public. Actually, they cannot. They are public officials who are appointed by
the President, but their salaries are paid by the private stockholders of the Federal Reserve
Banks.
Governor W.P.G. Harding of the Federal Reserve Board testified in 1921 that:
"The Federal Reserve Bank is an institution owned by the stockholding member banks. The
Government has not a dollar’s worth of stock in it."
However, the Government does give the Federal Reserve System the use of its billions of dollars of
credit, and this gives the Federal Reserve its characteristic of a central bank, the power to issue
currency on the Government’s credit. We do not have Federal Government notes or gold
certificates as currency. We have Federal Reserve Bank notes, issued by the Federal Reserve
Banks, and every dollar they print is a dollar in their pocket.
W. Randolph Burgess, of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, stated before the Academy of
Political Science in 1930 that:
"In its major principles of operation the Federal Reserve System is no different from other banks
of issue, such as the Bank of England, the Bank of France, or the Reichsbank." All of these
471
central banks have the power of issuing currency in their respective countries. Thus, the people
do not own their own money in Europe, nor do they own it here. It is privately printed for private
profit. The people have no sovereignty over their money, and it has developed that they have no
sovereignty over other major political issues such as foreign policy.
As a central bank of issue, the Federal Reserve System has behind it all the enormous wealth of
the American people. When it began operations in 1913, it created a serious threat to the central
banks of the impoverished countries of Europe. Because it represented this great wealth, it
attracted far more gold than was desirable in the 1920s, and it was apparent that soon all of the
world’s gold would be piled up in this country. This would make the gold standard a joke in
Europe, because they would have no gold over there to back their issue of money and credit. It
was the Federal Reserve’s avowed aim in 1927, after the secret meeting with the heads of the
foreign central banks, to get large quantities of that gold sent back to Europe, and its methods of
doing so, the low interest rate and heavy purchases of Government securities, which created vast
sums of new money, intensified the stock market speculation and made the stock market crash
and resultant depression a national disaster.
Since the Federal Reserve System was guilty of causing this disaster, we might suppose that they
would have tried to alleviate it. However, through the dark years of 1931 and 1932, the
Governors of the Federal Reserve Board saw the plight of the American people worsening and
did nothing to help them. This was more criminal than the original plotting of the Depression.
Anyone who lived through those years in this country remembers the widespread unemployment,
the misery, and the hunger of our people. At any time during those years the Federal Reserve
Board could have acted to relieve this situation.
The problem was to get some money back into circulation. So much of the money normally used
to pay rent and food bills had been sucked into Wall Street that there was no money to carry on
the business of living. In many areas, people printed their own money on wood and paper for use
in their communities, and this money was good, since it represented obligations to each other
which people fulfilled.
The Federal Reserve System was a central bank of issue. It had the power to, and did, when it
suited its owners, issue millions of dollars of money. Why did it not do so in 1931 and 1932? The
Wall Street bankers were through with Mr. Herbert Hoover, and they wanted Franklin D.
Roosevelt to come in on a wave of glory as the saviour of the nation. Therefore, the American
people had to starve and suffer until March of 1933, when the White Knight came riding in with
his crew of Wall Street bribers and put some money into circulation. That was all there was to it.
As soon as Mr. Roosevelt took office, the Federal Reserve began to buy Government securities at
the rate of ten million dollars a week for ten weeks, and created a hundred million dollars in new
money, which alleviated the critical famine of money and credit, and the factories started hiring
people again.
During the Roosevelt Administration, The Federal Reserve Board, insofar as the public was
concerned, was Marriner Eccles, an emulator and admirer of "the Chief". Eccles was a Utah
banker, President of the First Securities Corporation, a family investment trust consisting of a
number of banks which Eccles had picked up cheap during the Agricultural Depression of 1920-
21. Eccles also was a director of such corporations as Pet Milk Company, Mountain States
Implement Company, and Amalgamated Sugar. As a big banker, Eccles fitted in well with the
group of powerful men who were operating Roosevelt.
472
There was some discussion in Congress as to whether Eccles ought to be on the Federal Reserve
Board at the same time he had all of these banks in Utah, but he testified that he had very little to
do with the First Securities Corporation besides being President of it, and so he was confirmed as
Chairman of the Board.
Eugene Meyer, Jr. now resigned from the Board to spend more of his time lending the two billion
dollar capital of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, and determining the value of collateral
by his own methods.
The Banking Act of 1935, which greatly increased Roosevelt’s power over the nation’s finances,
was an integral part of the legislation by which he proposed to extend his reign in the United
States. It was not opposed by the people as was the National Recovery Act, because it was not so
naked an infringement of their liberties. It was, however, an important measure. First of all, it
extended the terms of office of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors to fourteen years, or,
three and a half times the length of a Presidential term. This meant that a President assuming
office who might be hostile to the Board could not appoint a majority to it who would be
favorable to him. Thus, a monetary policy inaugurated before a President came into the White
House would go on regardless of his wishes.
The Banking Act of 1935 also repealed the clause of the Glass-Steagall Banking Act of 1933,
which had provided that a banking house could not be on the Stock Exchange and also be
involved in investment banking. This clause was a good one, since it prevented a banking house
from lending money to a corporation which it owned. Still it is to be remembered that this clause
covered up some other provisions in that Act, such as the creation of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, providing insurance money to the amount of 150 million dollars, to
guarantee fifteen billion dollars worth of deposits. This increased the power of the big bankers
over small banks and gave them another excuse to investigate them. The Banking Act of 1933 also
legislated that all earnings of the Federal Reserve Banks must by law go to the banks themselves.
At last the provision in the Act that the Government share in the profits was gotten rid of. It had
never been observed, and the increase in the assets of the Federal Reserve Banks from 143 million
dollars in 1913 to 45 billion dollars in 1949 went entirely to the private stockholders of the banks.
Thus, the one constructive provision of the Banking Act of 1933 was repealed in 1935, and also
the Federal Reserve Banks were now permitted to loan directly to industry, competing with the
member banks, who could not hope to match their capacity in arranging large loans.
When the provision that banks could not be involved in investment banking and operate on the
Stock Exchange was repealed in 1935, Carter Glass, originator of that provision, was asked by
reporters:
"Does that mean that J.P. Morgan can go back into investment banking?"
"Well, why not?" replied Senator Glass. "There has been an outcry all over the country that the
banks will not make loans. Now the Morgans can go back to underwriting."
Because that provision was unfavorable to them, the bankers had simply clamped down on
making loans until it was repealed.
Newsweek of March 14, 1936, noted that:
"The Federal Reserve Board fired nine chairmen of Reserve Banks, explaining that ‘it intended
473
to make the chairmanships of the Reserve Banks largely a part-time job on an honorary basis.’"
This was another instance of the centralization of control in the Federal Reserve System. The
regional district system had never been an important factor in the administration of monetary
policy, and the Board was not cutting down on its officials outside of Washington. The Chairman
of the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency had asked, during the Gold Reserve Hearings
of 1934:
"Is it not true, Governor Young, that the Secretary of the Treasury for the past twelve years has
dominated the policy of the Federal Reserve Banks and the Federal Reserve Board with respect
to
the purchase of United States bonds?"
Governor Young had denied this, but it had already been brought out that on both of his hurried
trips to this country in 1927 and 1929 to dictate Federal Reserve policy, Governor Montagu
Norman of the Bank of England had gone directly to Andrew Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury,
to get him to purchase Government securities on the open market and start the movement of gold
out of this country back to Europe. The Gold Reserve Hearings had also brought in other people
who had more than a passing interest in the operations of the Federal Reserve System. James
Paul Warburg, just back from the London Economic Conference with Professor O.M.W. Sprague
and Henry L. Stimson, came in to declare that he thought we ought to modernize the gold
standard. Frank Vanderlip suggested that we do away with the Federal Reserve Board and set up
a Federal Monetary Authority. This would have made no difference to the New York bankers,
who would have selected the personnel anyway. And Senator Robert L. Owen, longtime critic of
the system, made the following statement:
"The people did not know the Federal Reserve Banks were organized for profit-making. They
were intended to stabilize the credit and currency supply of the country. That end has not been
accomplished. Indeed, there has been the most remarkable variation in the purchasing power of
money since the System went into effect. The Federal Reserve men are chosen by the big banks,
through discreet little campaigns, and they naturally follow the ideals which are portrayed to
them as the soundest from a financial point of view."
Benjamin Anderson, economist for the Chase National Bank of New York, said:
"At the moment, 1934, we have 900 million dollars excess reserves. In 1924, with increased
reserves of 300 million, you got some three or four billion in bank expansion of credit very
quickly. That extra money was put out by the Federal Reserve Banks in 1924 through buying
government securities and was the cause of the rapid expansion of bank credit. The banks
474
continued to get excess reserves because more gold came in, and because, whenever there was a
slackening, the Federal Reserve people would put out some more. They held back a bit in 1926.
Things firmed up a bit that year. And then in 1927 they put out less than 300 million additional
reserves, set the wild stock market going, and that led us right into the smash of 1929."
Dr. Anderson also stated that:
"The money of the Federal Reserve Banks is money they created. When they buy Government
securities they create reserves. They pay for the Government securities by giving checks on
themselves, and those checks come to the commercial banks and are by them deposited in the
Federal Reserve Banks, and then money exists which did not exist before."
SENATOR BULKLEY: It does not increase the circulating medium at all?
ANDERSON: No.
This is an explanation of the manner in which the Federal Reserve Banks increased their assets
from 143 million dollars to 45 billion dollars in thirty-five years. They did not produce anything,
they were non-productive enterprises, and yet they had this enormous profit, merely by creating
money, 95 percent of it in the form of credit, which did not add to the circulating medium. It was
not distributed among the people in the form of wages, nor did it increase the buying power of
the farmers and workers. It was credit-money created by bankers for the use and profit of
bankers, who increased their wealth by more than forty billion dollars in a few years because they
had obtained control of the Government’s credit in 1913 by passing the Federal Reserve Act.
Marriner Eccles also had much to say about the creation of money. He considered himself an
economist, and had been brought into the Government service by Stuart Chase and Rexford Guy
Tugwell, two of Roosevelt’s early brain-trusters. Eccles was the only one of the Roosevelt crowd
who stayed in office throughout his administration.
Before the House Banking and Currency Committee on June 24, 1941, Governor Eccles said:
"Money is created out of the right to issue credit-money."
Turning over the Government’s credit to private bankers in 1913 gave them unlimited
opportunities to create money. The Federal Reserve System could also destroy money in large
quantities through open market operations. Eccles said, at the Silver Hearings of 1939:
"When you sell bonds on the open market, you extinguish reserves."
Extinguishing reserves means wiping out a basis for money and credit issue, or, tightening up on
money and credit, a condition which is usually even more favorable to bankers than the creation
of money. Calling in or destroying money gives the banker immediate and unlimited control of
475
the financial situation, since he is the only one with money and the only one with the power to
issue money in a time of money shortage. The money panics of 1873, 1893, 1920-21, and 1929-31,
were characterized by a drawing in of the circulating medium. In economical terms, this does not
sound like such a terrible thing, but when it means that people do not have money to pay their
rent or buy food, and when it means that an employer has to lay off three-fourths of his help
because he cannot borrow the money to pay them, the enormous guilt of the bankers and the long
record of suffering and misery for which they are responsible would suggest that no punishment
might be too severe for their crimes against their fellowmen.
On September 30, 1940, Governor Eccles said:
"If there were no debts in our money system, there would be no money."
This is an accurate statement about our money system. Instead of money being created by the
production of the people, the annual increase in goods and services, it is created by the bankers
out of the debts of the people. Because it is inadequate, it is subject to great fluctuations and is
basically unstable. These fluctuations are also a source of great profit. For that reason, the
Federal Reserve Board has consistently opposed any legislation which attempts to stabilize the
monetary system. Its position has been set forth definitively in Chairman Eccles’ letter to Senator
Wagner on March 9, 1939, and the Memorandum issued by the Board on March 13, 1939.
Chairman Eccles wrote that:
". . . you are advised that the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System does not favor
the enactment of Senate Bill No. 31, a bill to amend the Federal Reserve Act, or any other
legislation of this general character."
The Memorandum of the Board stated, in its "Memorandum on Proposals to maintain prices at
fixed levels":
"The Board of Governors opposes any bill which proposes a stable price level, on the grounds
that prices do not depend primarily on the price or cost of money; that the Board’s control over
money cannot be made complete; and that steady average prices, even if obtainable by official
action, would not insure lasting prosperity."
Yet William McChesney Martin, the Chairman of the Board of Governors in 1952, said before
the Subcommittee on Debt Control, the Patman Committee, on March 10, 1952 that "One of the
fundamental purposes of the Federal Reserve Act is to protect the value of the dollar."
Senator Flanders questioned him: "Is that specifically stated in the original legislation setting up
the Federal Reserve System?"
"No," replied Mr. Martin, "but it is inherent in the entire legislative history and in the
476
surrounding circumstances."
Senator Robert L. Owen has told us how it was taken out of the original legislation against his
will, and that the Board of Governors has opposed such legislation. Apparently Mr. Martin does
not know this.
Steady average prices, indeed, are impossible so long as we have the speculators on the stock
exchange driving prices up and down in order to reap profits for themselves. Despite Governor
Eccles’ insistence that steady average prices would not insure lasting prosperity, they could do
much to bring about this condition. A man on a yearly wage of $2,500 is not more prosperous if
the price of bread increases five cents a loaf during the year.
In 1935, Eccles said before the House Committee on Banking and Currency:
"The Government controls the gold reserve, that is, the power to issue money and credit, thus
largely regulating the price structure."
This is an almost direct contradiction of Eccles’ statement in 1939 that prices do not depend,
primarily, on the price or cost of money.
In 1935, Governor Eccles stated before the House Committee:
"The Federal Reserve Board has the power of open market operations. Open-market
operations are the most important single instrument of control over the volume and cost of credit
in this country. When I say "credit" in this connection,
I mean money, because by far the largest part of money in use by the people of this country is in
the form of bank credit or bank deposits. When the Federal Reserve Banks buy bills or securities
in the open market, they increase the volume of the people’s money and lower its cost; and when
they sell in the open market they decrease the volume of money and increase its cost. Authority
over these operations, which affect the welfare of the whole people, must be invested in a body
representing the national interest."
Governor Eccles testimony exposes the heart of the money machine which Paul Warburg revealed
to his incredulous fellow bankers at Jekyll Island in 1910. Most Americans comment that they
cannot understand how the Federal Reserve System operates. It remains beyond understanding,
not because it is complex, but because it is so simple. If a confidence man comes up to you and
offers to demonstrate his marvelous money machine, you watch while he puts in a blank piece of
paper, and cranks out a $100 bill. That is the Federal Reserve System. You then offer to buy this
marvelous money machine, but you cannot. It is owned by the private stockholders of the Federal
Reserve Banks, whose identities can be traced partially, but not completely, to "the London
Connection."
477
At the House Banking and Currency Committee Hearings on June 6, 1960, Congressman Wright
Patman, Chairman, questioned Carl E. Allen, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
(p. 4). PATMAN: "Now Mr. Allen, when the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee buys a
million dollar bond you create the money on the credit of the Nation to pay for that bond, don’t
you? ALLEN: That is correct. PATMAN: And the credit of the Nation is represented by Federal
Reserve Notes in that case, isn’t it? If the banks want the actual money, you give Federal Reserve
notes in payment, don’t you? ALLEN: That could be done, but nobody wants the Federal
Reserve notes. PATMAN: Nobody wants them, because the banks would rather have the credit as
reserves."
This is the most incredible part of the Federal Reserve operation and one which is difficult for
anyone to understand. How can any American citizen grasp the concept that there are people in
this country who have the power to make an entry in a ledger that the government of the United
States now owes them one billion dollars, and to collect the principal and interest on this "loan"?
Congressman Wright Patman tells us in "The Primer of Money", p. 38 of going into a Federal
Reserve Bank and asking to see their bonds on which the American people are paying interest.
After being shown the bonds, he asked to see their cash, but they only had some ledgers and
blank checks. Patman says,
"The cash, in truth, does not exist and has never existed. What we call ‘cash reserves’ are simply
bookkeeping credits entered upon ledgers of the Federal Reserve Banks. The credits are created
by the Federal Reserve Banks and then
passed along through the banking system."
Peter L. Bernstein, in A Primer On Money, Banking and Gold says:
"The trick in the Federal Reserve notes is that the Federal reserve banks lose no cash when they
pay out this currency to the member banks. Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in
anything
except what the Government calls ‘legal tender’--that is, money that a creditor must be willing to
accept from a debtor in payment of sums owed him. But since all Federal Reserve notes are
themselves declared by law to be legal money, they are really redeemable only in themselves . . .
they are an irredeemable obligation issued by the Federal Reserve Banks."91
As Congressman Patman puts it,
"The dollar represents a one dollar debt to the Federal Reserve System. The Federal Reserve
Banks create money out of thin air to buy Government bonds from the United States Treasury,
lending money into circulation at interest, by bookkeeping entries of checkbook credit to the
United States Treasury. The Treasury writes up an interest bearing bond for one billion dollars.
The Federal Reserve gives the Treasury a one billion dollar credit for the bond, and has created
out of nothing a one billion dollar debt which the American people are obligated to pay with
478
interest." (Money Facts, House Banking and Currency Committee, 1964, p. 9)
Patman continues,
"Where does the Federal Reserve system get the money with which to create Bank Reserves?
Answer. It doesn’t get the money, it creates it. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is
creating money. The Federal Reserve is a total moneymaking machine. It can issue money or
checks."
In 1951, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York published a pamphlet, "A Day’s Work at the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York." On page 22, we find that:
"There is still another and more important element of public interest in the operation of banks
besides the safekeeping of money; banks can ‘create’ money. One of the most important factors to
remember in this connection is that the supply of money affects the general level of prices--the
cost of living. The Cost of Living Index and money supply are parallel."
The decisions of the Federal Reserve Board, or rather, the decisions which they are told to make
by "parties unknown", affect the daily lives of every American by the effect of these decisions on
prices. Raising the interest rate, or causing money to became "dearer" acts to limit the amount of
money available in the market, as does the raising of reserve requirements by the Federal Reserve
System. Selling bonds by the Open Market Committee also extinguishes and lowers the money
supply. Buying government securities on the open market "creates" more money, as does
lowering the interest rate and making money "cheaper". It is axiomatic that an increase in the
money supply brings prosperity, and that a decrease in the money supply brings on a depression.
Dramatic increases in the money which outstrip the supply of goods brings on inflation, "too
much money chasing too few goods". A more esoteric aspect of the monetary system is "velocity
of circulation", which sounds much more technical than it is. This is the speed at which money
changes hands; if it is gold buried in the peasant’s garden, that is a slow velocity of circulation,
caused by a lack of confidence in the economy or the nation. Very rapid velocity of circulation,
such as the stock market boom of the late 1920s, means quick turnover, spending and investment
of money, and its stems from confidence, or overconfidence, in the economy. With a high velocity
of circulation, a smaller money supply circulates among as many people and goods as a larger
money supply would circulate with a slower velocity of circulation. We mention this because the
velocity of circulation, or confidence in the economy, also is greatly affected by the Federal
Reserve actions. Milton Friedman comments in Newsweek, May 2, 1983, "The Federal Reserve’s
major function is to determine the money supply. It has the power to increase or decrease the
money supply at any rate it chooses."
This is an enormous power, because increasing the money supply can cause the re-election of an
administration, while decreasing it can cause an administration to be defeated. Friedman goes on
to criticize the Federal Reserve, "How is it that an institution which has so poor a record of
479
performance nevertheless has so high a public reputation and even commands a considerable
measure of credibility for its forecasts?"
All open market transactions, which affect the money supply, are conducted for a single System
account by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York on the behalf of all the Federal Reserve Banks,
and supervised by an officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The conferences at which
decisions are made to buy or sell securities by the Open Market Committee remain closed to the
public, and the deliberations also remain a mystery. On May 8, 1928, The New York Times
reported that Adolph C. Miller, Governor of the Federal Reserve Board, testifying before the
House Banking and Currency Committee, stated that open market purchases and rediscount
rates were established through "conversations". At that time, the purchases on the open market
amounted to seventy or eighty million dollars a day, and would be ten times that today. These are
vast sums to be manipulated on the basis of mere "conversations", but that is as much
information as we can obtain. Because of these mysterious transactions which affect the life,
liberty and happiness of every American citizen, there have been numerous proposals such as
Senate Document No. 23, presented by Mr. Logan on January 24, 1939, that "The Government
should create, issue and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power
of the Government and the buying power of the consumers. The privilege of creating and issuing
money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Government’s greatest
creative opportunity."
On March 21, 1960, Congressman Wright Patman used a simple illustration in the Congressional
Record of how banks "create money".
"If I deposit $100 with my bank and the reserve requirements imposed by the Federal Reserve
Bank are 20% then the bank can make a loan to John Doe of up to $80. Where does the $80
come from? It does not come out of my deposit of $100; on the contrary, the bank simply credits
John Doe’s account with $80. The bank can acquire Government obligations by the same
procedure, by simply creating deposits to the credit of the government. Money creating is a
power of the commercial banks . . . Since 1917 the Federal Reserve has given the private banks
forty-six billion dollars of reserves."
How this is done is best revealed by Governor Eccles at Hearings before the House Committee on
Banking and Currency on June 24, 1941:
ECCLES: "The banking system as a whole creates and extinguishes the deposits as they make
loans and investments, whether they buy Government Bonds or whether they buy utility bonds
or whether they make Farmer’s loans.
MR. PATMAN: I am thoroughly in accord with what you say, Governor, but the fact remains
that they created the money, did they not?
ECCLES: Well, the banks create money when they make loans and investments."
On September 30, 1941, before the same Committee, Governor Eccles was asked by
Representative Patman:
"How did you get the money to buy those two billion dollars worth of Government securities in
480
1933?
ECCLES: We created it.
MR. PATMAN: Out of what?
ECCLES: Out of the right to issue credit money.
MR. PATMAN: And there is nothing behind it, is there, except our Government’s credit?
ECCLES: That is what our money system is. If there were no debts in our money system, there
wouldn’t be any money."
On June 17, 1942, Governor Eccles was interrogated by Mr. Dewey.
ECCLES: "I mean the Federal Reserve, when it carries out an open market operation, that is, if
it
purchases Government securities in the open market, it puts new money into the hands of the
banks which creates idle deposits.
DEWEY: There are no excess reserves to use for this purpose?
ECCLES: Whenever the Federal Reserve System buys Government securities in the open
market,
or buys them direct from the Treasury, either one, that is what it does.
DEWEY: What are you going to use to buy them with? You are going to create credit?
ECCLES: That is all we have ever done. That is the way the Federal Reserve System operates.
The Federal Reserve System creates money. It is a bank of issue."
At the House Hearing of 1947, Mr. Kolburn asked Mr. Eccles:
"What do you mean by monetization of the public debt?
ECCLES: I mean the bank creating money by the purchase of Government securities. All
is created by debt--either private or public debt.
FLETCHER: Chairman Eccles, when do you think there is a possibility of returning to a free and
open market, instead of this pegged and artificially controlled financial market we now have?
481
ECCLES: Never. Not in your lifetime or mine."
Congressman Jerry Voorhis is quoted in U.S. News, August 31, 1959, as questioning Secretary of
Treasury Anderson, "Do you mean that Banks, in buying Government securities, do not lend out
their customers’ deposits? That they create the money they use to buy the securities?
ANDERSON: That is correct. Banks are different from other lending institutions. When a
savings association, an insurance company, or a credit union makes a loan, it lends the very dollar
that its customers have previously paid in. But when a bank makes a loan, it simply adds to the
borrower’s deposit account in the bank by the amount of the loan. The money is not taken from
anyone. It is new money, recreated by the bank, for the use of the borrower."
Strangely enough, there has never been a court trial on the legality or Constitutionality of the
Federal Reserve Act. Although it is on much the same shaky grounds as the National Recovery
Act, or NRA, which was challenged in Schechter Poultry v. United States of America, 29 U.S. 495,
55 US 837.842 (1935), the NRA was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on the grounds
that "Congress may not abdicate or transfer to others its legitimate functions. Congress cannot
Constitutionally delegate its legislative authority to trade or industrial associations or groups so
as to empower them to make laws."
Article 1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution provides that "The Congress shall have power to borrow
money on the credit of the United States . . . and to coin Money, regulate the value thereof, and of
foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures." According to the NRA deci-sion,
Congress cannot delegate this power to the Federal Reserve System, nor can it delegate its
legislative authority to the Federal Reserve System to allow the System to fix the rate of bank
reserves, the rediscount rate, or the volume of money. All of these are "legislated" by the Federal
Reserve Board, meeting in legislative sessions to determine these matters and to issue "laws" or
regulations fixing them.
The Second World War gave the big bankers who owned the Federal Reserve System a chance to
unload on the country billions of dollars printed early in 1930, in the biggest counterfeiting
operation in history, all legalized by Roosevelt’s government, of course. Henry Hazlitt writes in
the January 4, 1943 issue of Newsweek Magazine:
"The money that began to appear in circulation a week ago, December 21, 1942, was really
printing press money in the fullest sense of the term, that is, money which has no collateral of any
kind behind it. The Federal Reserve statement that ‘The Board of Governors, after consultation
with the Treasury Department, has authorized Federal Reserve Banks to utilize at this time the
existing stocks of currency printed in the early thirties, known as ‘Federal Reserve Banknotes’.
We repeat, these notes have absolutely no collateral of any kind behind them."
Governor Eccles also testified to some other interesting matters of the Federal Reserve and war
finance at the Senate Hearings on the Office of Price Administration in 1944:
"The currency in circulation was increased from seven billion dollars in four years to twenty-one
and a half billion. We are losing some considerable amounts of gold during the war period. As
our exports have gone out, largely on a lend-lease basis, we have taken imports on which we have
given dollar balances. These countries are now drawing off these dollar balances in the form of
482
gold.
MR. SMITH: Governor Eccles, what is the objective that the foreign governments are after in
this projected program whereby we would contribute gold to an international fund?
GOVERNOR ECCLES: I would like to discuss OPA, and leave the stabilization fund for a time
when I am prepared to go into it.
MR. SMITH: Just a minute. I feel that this fund is very pertinent to what we are talking about
today.
MR. FORD: I believe that the stabilization fund is entirely off the @OPA and consequently we
ought to stick to the business at hand."
The Congressmen never did get to discuss the Stabilization Fund, another setup whereby we
would give the impoverished countries of Europe back the gold which had been sent over here. In
1945, Henry Hazlitt, commenting in Newsweek of January 22, on Roosevelt’s annual budget
message to Congress, quoted Roosevelt as saying:
"I shall later recommend legislation reducing the present high gold reserve requirements of the
Federal Reserve Banks."Hazlitt pointed out that the reserve requirement was not high, it was
just what it had been for the past thirty years. Roosevelt’s purpose was to free more gold from the
Federal Reserve System and make it available for the Stabilization Fund, later called the
International Monetary Fund, part of the World Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the
equivalent of the League Finance Committee which would have swallowed the financial
sovereignty of the United States if the Senate had let us join it. Since 1933 when Eugene Meyer
resigned from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, no member of the international banking
families has personally served on the Board of Governors. They have chosen to work from behind
the scenes through carefully selected presidents of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and
other employees.
The present chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors is Paul Volcker. His
appointment was greeted by one well-known economist with the following prediction, "Volcker’s
selection has been by far the worst. Carter has put Dracula in charge of the blood bank. To us, it
means a crash and depression in the 80s is more certain than ever."
Col. E.C. Harwood’s Research Report, August 6, 1979, gave much the same view. "Paul Volcker
is from the same mold as the unsound money men who have misguided the monetary actions of
this nation for the past five decades. The outcome probably will be equally disastrous for the
dollar and the U.S. economy."
Despite these gloomy views, the report from The New York Times on the selection of Volcker was
positively ecstatic. On July 26, 1979, The Times commented that Volcker learned "the business"
483
from Robert Roosa, now partner of Brown Brothers Harriman, and that Volcker had been part of
the Roosa Brain Trust at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and, later, at the Treasury in the
Kennedy administration. "David Rockefeller, the chairman of Chase, and Mr. Roosa were strong
influences in the Mr. Carter decision to name Mr. Volcker for the Reserve Board chairmanship."
The New York Times did not point out that David Rockefeller and Robert Roosa had previously
chosen Mr. Carter, a member of the Trilateral Commission, as the presidential candidate of the
Democratic Party, or that Mr. Carter would hardly refuse to appoint their choice of Paul Volcker
as the new Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Nor is it straining the point to be reminded
that this manner of selection of the Chairman of the Board of Governors is directly in the line of
royal prerogative going back to George Peabody’s initial agreement with N.M. Rothschild, to the
Jekyll Island meeting, and to the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act. The Times noted that
"Volcker’s choice was approved by European banks in Bonn, Frankfurt and Zurich." William
Simon, former Secretary of Treasury, was quoted as saying "a marvelous choice." The Times
further noted that the Dow market rose on Volcker’s nomination, registering the best gains in
three weeks for a rise of 9.73 points, and that the dollar rose sharply on foreign exchange@ at
home and abroad.
Who was Volcker, that his appointment could have such an effect on the stock market and the
value of the dollar in foreign exchange? He represented the most powerful house of "the London
Connection," Brown Brothers Harriman, and the London houses which directed the Rockefeller
empire. On July 29, 1979, The Times had said of Volcker, "New Man Will Chart His Own
Course".
Volcker’s background shows that this was nonsense. His course has always been charted for him
by his masters in London. He attended Princeton, obtained an M.A. at Harvard, and went to the
London School of Economics 1951-52, the banker’s graduate school. He then came to the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York as an economist from 1952-57, economist at Chase Manhattan Bank,
1957-61, with Treasury Department 1961-65, as deputy under secretary for monetary affairs,
1963-65, and under secretary for monetary affairs, 1969-74. He then became President of the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York from 1975-79, when Carter, at the behest of Robert Roosa
and David Rockefeller, appointed him Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. He
was succeeded as President of Federal Reserve Bank of New York by Anthony Solomon, a
Harvard Ph.D. who was with the OPA 1941-42 and with the government financial mission to Iran
1942-46. He operated a canned food company in Mexico from 1951-61, was president of
International Investment Corp. for Yugoslavia 1969-72 (a communist country), under secretary
for monetary affairs at Treasury 1977-80. In short, Solomon’s background was much the same as
Paul Volcker’s.
The New York Times stated on December 2, 1981, "For years the Federal Reserve was the second
or third most secret institution in town. The Sunshine Act of 1976 penetrated the curtain a trifle.
The board now holds a public meeting once a week on Wednesday at 10 a.m., but not to discuss
Monetary policy, which is still regarded as top secret and not to be discussed in public." The
Times mentioned that when Open Market Committee meetings are held, Solomon and Volcker sit
together at the head of the table and relay the instructions which they have received from abroad.
Behind Volcker and Solomon stands Robert Roosa, Secretary of the Treasury in Carter’s shadow
cabinet, and representing Brown Brothers Harriman, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on
Foreign Relations, the Bilderbergers, and the Royal Economic Institute. He is a trustee of the
Rockefeller Foundation*, and a director of Texaco and American Express companies. Dr. Martin
Larson points out that "The international consortium of financiers known as the Bilderbergers,
484
who meet annually in profound secrecy to determine the destiny of the western world, is a
creature of the Rockefeller-Rothschild alliance, and that it held its third meeting on St. Simons
Island, only a short distance from Jekyll Island." Larson also states that "The Rockefeller
interests work in close alliance with the Rothschilds and other central banks."**
On June 18, 1983, President Ronald Reagan ended months of speculation by announcing that he
was reappointing Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors for
another four year term, although Volcker’s term was not up until August 6, 1983. Reagan’s
reappointment of a Carter appointee puzzled some political observers, but apparently he had
succumbed to considerable pressure, as indicated by a lead editorial in The Washington Post,
June 10, 1983, "There is no one who matches Mr. Volcker in both political standing and grasp of
the intricate networks that make up the world’s financial system." The anonymous writer gave
no documentation for his elevation of Volcker to the standing of the world’s greatest financier,
and as for his political standing, The New York Times commented on June 19, 1983, "Mr.
Volcker’s politics is something of an enigma." His "non-political" stance conforms with the
Washington tradition of "the political independence of the Fed" which has been maintained for
many years. However, the problem of its dependence on "the London connection" has never been
discussed in Washington.
In reality, Volcker is more of a politician than an economist. After attending the London School of
Economics, and finding out who issues the orders of the international financial community,
Volcker has ever since played the game. Not once has he failed to carry out the orders of the
"London Connection".
Can it really be possible that "The London Connection" exists, and that men like Volcker and
Solomon receive their instructions, in however devious or indirect a manner, from foreign
bankers? Let us look at the evidence, circumstantial, to be sure, but circumstantial evidence of
the quality which has often sent men to the penitentiary or to the electric chair. John Moody
pointed out in 1911 that seven men of the Morgan group, allied with the Standard Oil-Kuhn,
Loeb group, ruled the United States. Where do these groups stand in the financial picture today?
U.S. News published on April 11, 1983, a list of the largest bank holding companies in the United
States by assets as of December 31, 1982. Number 1 is Citicorp, New York, with assets of $130
billion. This is Baker and Morgan’s First National Bank of New York, merged with National City
Bank in 1955, two of the largest purchasers of Federal Reserve Bank of New York stock in 1914.
Number 3, is Chase Manhattan, New York, with assets of $80.9 billion. This is Chase and Bank of
Manhattan merged, the Rockefeller and Kuhn Loeb group, also purchasers of Federal Reserve
Bank of New York stock in 1914. Number 4 is Manufacturers Hanover of New York $64 billion,
also purchaser of Federal Reserve Bank of New York stock in 1914. Number 5 is J.P. Morgan
Company of New York, $58.6 billion in assets and holder of considerable Federal Reserve Bank
stock. Number 6 is Chemical Bank of New York, $48.3 billion also purchaser of Federal Reserve
stock in 1914. And Number 11, First Chicago Corporation, the First National Bank of Chicago
which was principal correspondent of the Morgan-Baker bank in New York, and which furnished
the first two presidents of the Federal Advisory Council.
The direct line which leads from the participants in the Jekyll Island Conference of 1910 to the
present day is illustrated by a passage from "A Primer on Money", Committee on Banking and
Currency, U.S. House of Representatives, 88th Congress, 2d session, August 5, 1964, p. 75:
"The practical effect of requiring all purchases to be made through the open market is to take
485
money from the taxpayer and give it to the dealers. It forces the Government to pay a toll for
borrowing money. There are six ‘bank’ dealers: First National City Bank of New York; Chemical
Crop. Exchange Bank, New York, Morgan Guaranty Trust Co., New York, Bankers Trust of New
York, First National Bank of Chicago, and Continental Illinois Bank of Chicago."
Thus the banks which receive a "toll" on all money borrowed by the Government of the United
States are the same banks which planned the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. There is ample
evidence demonstrating the present preeminence of the same banks which set up the Federal
Reserve System in 1914. For instance, Warren Brookes writes on the editorial page of The
Washington Post, June 6, 1983:
"Citicorp (National City Bank and First National Bank of New York, merged in 1955) just
recorded an 18.6% return on equity, J.P. Morgan, 17%, Chemical Bank and Bankers Trust,
nearly 16%, an exceptional rate of return."
These are the banks which bought the first issue of Federal Reserve Bank stock in 1914, and
which owned the controlling interest in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which sets the
interest rate and is the bank for all open market operations.
These banks also profit steadily from the otherwise inexplicable fluctuations in monetary growth
and interest rates. Brookes further comments on "actual monetary growth rates alternately
gyrating from 0 to 17% in successive six month periods for three recession-wracked years. The
two measures of money growth most admired by Milton Friedman M2 and M3, have actually
shown little change on a year to year basis in the 1972-82 period."
Thus we have money growth rates gyrating from 0 to 17% but no actual year to year changes,
which raises the question of why we cannot have stability of monetary growth throughout the
year. The answer is that the big profits are made by these gyrations, and the next question is, who
sets in motion these gyrations? The answer is "the London Connection".
To draw attention from the continued control of the bankers and their heirs, who obtained the
government monopoly of the nation’s money and credit in 1913, the paid propagandists of the
controlled media monopoly and academia are constantly trotting forth new and more exotic
theories of economics. Thus James Burnham, one of the National Review propagandists, won
fame with a ridiculous theory of "the managers". He postulated that the old arbiters of wealth,
the J.P. Morgans, the Warburgs and the Rothschilds had, by 1950, disappeared from the scene,
being replaced by a new class of "managers". This theory, which had no foundation in fact,
served to obscure the fact that the same people still controlled the monetary system of the world.
The "managers" were just that, executives like Volcker who were front men, paid employees who
would continue to receive their paychecks only as long as they carried out their employers’
instructions. Burnham remains a well-paid propagandist at the National Review, which many
prominent leaders, including President Reagan, believe to be a "conservative" publication.
From 1914 to 1982, a period in which many thousands of American banks went bankrupt, the
original purchasers of Federal Reserve Bank stock have not only survived but they have
consolidated their power. And what of "the London Connection"? Does it still exist, and is it still
dictating the economic destiny of the United States? The Washington Post, May 19, 1983, carried
a story datelined Nairobi, Kenya, noting the meeting of the African Development Bank. "The
British merchant bank, Morgan Grenfell and a syndicate of the United States, Kuhn Loeb,
Lehman Brothers International, the French Lazard Freres and Britain’s Warburg are discreetly
486
acting as financial advisors to about ten debt-plagued African states."
There are the same names we encountered in 1914, still managing the finances of the world, with
profits for themselves but with disastrous results for everyone else. Perhaps we can look for relief
to the present Administration of President Reagan. Unfortunately, before reaching him we have
to run the gamut of the long list of his principal staff, composed of men from J. Henry Schroder,
Brown Brothers Harriman, and other leading components of "The London Connection".
Lopez Portillo, President of Mexico, in addressing the Mexican National Congress of Mexico in
September, 1982, called the world credit boom of the past decade a financial pestilence akin to the
Black Death which swept Europe in the fourteenth century. "As in mediaeval times, it flattens
country after country. It is transmitted by rats and it yields unemployment and misery, industrial
bankruptcy and enrichment by speculation. The remedy prescribed by faith healers is forced
inactivity and depriving the patient of food."
Forbes Magazine stated October 11, 1982, "The world gasps for liquidity, not because the supply
of money has contracted but because too much of it now goes to pay off old debts rather than
fund new productive investments."
The policy of high interest rates and tight money has been disastrous for the United States. In
early 1983, a slight easing of money and credit promises some relief, but as long as the Federal
Reserve system and its unseen manipulators continue their control of the money supply, we can
expect more problems. The Nation on December 11, 1982, in commenting on economic problems,
stated, "The blame for all this lies at the door of the Federal Reserve System working as usual on
behalf of the international banking system."
The evidence of how the Federal Reserve System works on behalf of the international banking
system is graphically illustrated by a series of charts drawn up by the staff of the Committee on
Banking, Currency and Housing of the House of Representatives, 94th Congress, 2d session,
August, 1976, "FEDERAL RESERVE DIRECTORS: A STUDY OF CORPORATE AND
BANKING INFLUENCE".* We present as our Chart V page 49 of this study, showing the
interlocking directorates of David Rockefeller. As our Chart VI we reproduce page 55 of this
study, showing the interlocking directorates of Frank R. Milliken, one of the Class C Directors**
of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. In this chart are all the main personages in our story of
the Jekyll Island conference: Citibank, J.P. Morgan and Company, Kuhn Loeb and Company,
and many related firms. As Chart VII we reproduce page 53 of this study, showing the
interlocking directorates of another Class C Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York,
Alan Pifer. As President of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, he interlocks with J. Henry
Schroder Trust Company, J. Henry Schroder Banking Corporation, Rockefeller Center, Inc.,
Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Equitable Life Assurance Society (J.P. Morgan), and others.
Thus an August, 1976 study from the House Committee on Banking, Currency and Housing,
brings before us all of our main cast of personages, functioning today just as they did in 1914.
Appointed by President Reagan to succeed Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System in 1987. Greenspan had succeeded Herbert Stein as chairman of
the President’s Council of Economic Advisors in 1974. He was the protégé of former chairman of
the Board of Governors, Arthur Burns of Austria (Bernstein). Burns was a monetarist
representing the Rothschild’s Viennese School of Economics, which manifested its influence in
England through the Royal Colonial Society, a front for Rothschilds and other English bankers
who stashed their profits from the world drug trade in the Hong Kong Shanghai Bank. The staff
economist for the Royal Colonial Society was Alfred Marshall, inventor of the monetarist theory,
487
who, as head of the Oxford Group, became the patron of Wesley Clair Mitchell, who founded the
National Bureau of Economic Research for the Rockefellers in the United States. Mitchell, in
turn, became the patron of Arthur Burns and Milton Friedman, whose theories are now the
power techniques of Greenspan at the Federal Reserve Board. Greenspan is also the protégé of
Ayn Rand, a weirdo who interposed her sexual affairs with guttural commands to be selfish.
Rand was also the patron of CIA propagandist William Buckeley and the National Review.
Greenspan was director of major Wall Street firms such as J.P. Morgan Co., Morgan Guaranty
Trust (the American bank for the Soviets after the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917), Brookings
Institution, Bowery Savings Bank, the Dreyfus Fund, General Foods, and Time, Inc. Greenspan’s
most impressive achievement was as chairman of the National Commission on Social Security
from 1981-1983. He juggled figures to convince the public that Social Security was bankrupt,
when in fact it had an enormous surplus. These figures were then used to fasten onto American
workers a huge increase in Social Security withholding tax, which invoked David Ricardo’s
economic dictum of the iron law of wages, that workers could only be paid a subsistence wage,
and any funds beyond that must be extorted from them forcibly by tax increases. As a partner of
J.P. Morgan Co. since 1977, Greenspan represented the unbroken line of control of the Federal
Reserve System by the firms represented at the secret meeting on Jekyll Island in 1910, where
Henry P. Davison, righthand man of J.P. Morgan, was a key figure in the drafting of the Federal
Reserve Act. Within days of taking over as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Greenspan
immediately raised the interest rate on Sept. 4, 1987, the first such increase in three years of
general prosperity, and precipitated the stock market crash of Oct., 1987, Black Monday, when
the Dow Jones average plunged 508 points. Under Greenspan’s direction, the Federal Reserve
Board has steadily nudged the United States deeper and deeper into recession, without a word of
criticism from the complaisant members of Congress.
COLONEL EDWARD MANDELL HOUSE (1858-1938)
Son of a Rothschild agent in Texas. Succeeded in electing five consecutive governors of Texas;
became Woodrow Wilson’s advisor in 1912. Cooperated with Paul Warburg to get the Federal
Reserve Act passed by Congress in 1913.
ROBERT MARION LAFOLLETTE (1855-1925)
Served in Senate from Wisconsin 1905-25. Led agrarian reformers in opposing Eastern bankers
and their plans for the Federal Reserve Act. Ran for President in 1924 on Progressive-Socialist
ticket.
CHARLES AUGUSTUS LINDBERGH, SR. (1860-1924)
Congressman from Minnesota (1907-1917) who led the fight against enactment of the Federal
Reserve Act in 1913. He served until 1917 when he resigned to run for governor of Minnesota. He
ran a good campaign despite adverse newspaper attacks led by The New York Times. His
campaign was adversely affected when Federal agents burned his books, including Why Is Your
Country At War? and the papers and contents of his home office in Little Falls, Minnesota.
IT WAS BECAUSE OF CHARLES AUGUSTUS LINDBERGH, SR. AND HIS FIGHT
AGAINST THE ROTHCHILDS FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM THAT
HIS SONS CHILD WAS KIDNAPPED AND KILLED. THIS IS KNOWN AS 'THE LINBERGH
488
BABY KIDNAPPING'. LOUIS T. McFADDEN (1876-1936)
Congressman and Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, 1927-33;
courageously opposed the manipulators of the Federal Reserve System in the 1920’s and the
1930’s. Introduced bills to impeach Federal Reserve Board of Governors and allied officials. After
three attempts on his life, he died mysteriously.
JOHN PIERPONT MORGAN (1837-1913)
Considered the dominant American financier at the turn of the century. Who’s Who in 1912
stated he "controls over 50,000 miles of railroads in the United States." Organized United States
Steel Corporation. Became representative of House of Rothschild through his father, Junius S.
Morgan, who had become London partner of George Peabody & Company, later Junius S.
Morgan Company, a Rothschild agent. John Pierpont Morgan, Jr. succeeded his father as head of
the Morgan empire.
DAVID MULLINS (1946- )
Appointed Governor of the Federal Reserve Board May 21, 1990, David Mullins’ term runs to
Jan. 31, 1996. He was recently nominated to serve as Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve
Board, and served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Domestic Finance 1988-90, receiving
the department’s highest award, the Alexander Hamilton Award, for his service in such programs
as synthetic fuels, federal finance, Farm Credit Assistance Board, and author of the President’s
Plan for rescuing the savings and loan institutions. He is a distant cousin of the author, descended
from John Mullins, the first recorded settler in the western area of Virginia, hero of the battle of
King’s Mountain, and recipient of a 200 acre grant of land for his service in the American
Revolution.
WRIGHT PATMAN (1893-1976)
Congressman and Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee 1963-74. Led the
fight in Congress to stop the manipulators of the Federal Reserve System from 1937 to his death
in 1976.
CONGRESSMAN ARSENE PUJO
Served in Congress 1903-1913. Democrat from Louisiana. Chairman of House Banking and
Currency Committee. Chairman of "Pujo Hearings" Subcommittee, 1912. SIR GORDON
RICHARDSON (1915- )
Head of the Bank of England since 1973. Chairman J. Henry Schroder Wagg, London, 1962-72;
director of J. Henry Schroder Banking Corporation, New York; Schroder Banking Corporation,
489
New York; Lloyd’s Bank, London; Rolls Royce.
JACOB SCHIFF (1847-1920)
Born in Rothschild house in Frankfurt, Germany. Emigrated to United States, married Therese
Loeb, daughter of Solomon Loeb, founder of Kuhn, Loeb and Co. Schiff became senior partner
of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., and as representative of Rothschild interests gained control of most of
railway mileage in United States.
BARON KURT VON SCHRODER (1889- )
Adolph Hitler’s personal banker, advanced funds for Hitler’s accession to power in Germany in
1933; German representative of the London and New York branches of J. Henry Schroder
Banking Corporation; SS Senior Group Leader; director of all German subsidiaries of I.T.T;
Himmler’s Circle of Friends; advisor to board of directors, Deutsche Reichsbank (German
central bank).
ANTHONY MORTON SOLOMON (1919- )
Educated at Harvard, economist Office of Price Administration, 1941-42; financial mission to
Iran, 1942-46; Agency for international Development South America, 1965-69; president
international Investment Corporation for Yugoslavia 1969-72; advisor to Chairman, Ways and
Means Committee, House of Representatives, 1972-73; Undersecretary Monetary Affairs, U.S.
Treasury, 1977-80; president Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 1980-
SAMUEL UNTERMYER (1858-1940)
A partner of the law firm of Guggenheimer and Untermyer of New York, who conducted the
"Pujo Hearings" of the House Banking and Currency Committee in 1912. Counsel for Rogers
and Rockefeller in many large suits against F. Augustus Heinze, Thomas W Lawson and others.
Earned a single fee of $775,000 for handling merger of Utah Copper Company. Reported in The
New York Times May 26, 1924 as urging immediate recognition of Soviet Russia at Carnegie Hall
meeting. Untermyer’s prestige and power is illustrated by the fact that this front page obituary in
The New York Times covered six columns. His listing in Who’s Who was the longest for thirteen
years.
FRANK VANDERLIP (1864-1937)
Assistant Secretary of Treasury 1897-1901; won prestige for financing Spanish American War by
floating $200,000,000 in bonds during his incumbency for what is known as "National City
490
Bank’s War" President of National City Bank 1909-19. One of the original Jekyll Island group
who wrote Federal Reserve Act in November, 1910. No mention of this important fact is made in
extensive obituary in The New York Times, June 30, 1937.
190
GEORGE SYLVESTER VIERECK (1884-1962)
Author of the definitive study The Strangest Friendship in History, Woodrow Wilson and Col.
House, Liveright, 1932. A leading poet of the early 1900’s, reviewed on the front page of The New
York Times Book Review, and known as the leading German-American citizen of the United
States.
PAUL VOLCKER (1927- )
Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors since 1979, appointed by President Carter,
reappointed by President Reagan for another four year term beginning August 6, 1983. Educated
at Princeton, Harvard and London School of Economics; employed by Federal Reserve Bank of
New York, 1952-57; Chase Manhattan Bank, 1957-61; Treasury Department, 1961-74; president
Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 1975-79.
PAUL WARBURG (1868-1932)
Conceded to be the actual author of our central bank plan, the Federal Reserve System, by
knowledgeable authorities. Emigrated to the United States from Germany 1904; partner, Kuhn
Loeb and Company bankers, New York; naturalized 1911. Member of the original Federal
Reserve Board of Governors, 1914-1918; president Federal Advisory Council, 1918-1928. Brother
of Max Warburg, who was head of German Secret Service during World War I and who
represented Germany at the Peace Conference, 1918-1919, while Paul was chairman of the
Federal Reserve System.
SIR WILLIAM WISEMAN (1885-1962)
Partner of Kuhn, Loeb and Company; head of British Secret Service during World War I.
Worked closely with Col. House dominating the United States and England.
What is the Federal Reserve System?
The Federal Reserve System is not Federal; it has no reserves; and it is not a system, but rather,
a criminal syndicate. It is the product of criminal syndicalist activity of an international
consortium of dynastic families comprising what the author terms "The World Order". The
491
Federal Reserve system is a central bank operating in the United States. Although the student
will find no such definition of a central bank in the textbooks of any university, the author has
defined a central bank as follows: It is the dominant financial power of the country which
harbors it. It is entirely private-owned, although it seeks to give the appearance of a
governmental institution. It has the right to print and issue money, the traditional prerogative of
monarchs. It is set up to provide financing for wars. It functions as a money monopoly having
total power over all the money and credit of the people. The members of the 63rd Congress had
no knowledge of a central bank or of its monopolistic operations. Many of those who voted for
the bill were duped; others were bribed; others were intimidated. The preface to the Federal
Reserve Act reads "An Act to provide for the establishment of Federal reserve banks, to furnish
an elastic currency, to afford means of rediscounting commercial papers, to establish a more
effective supervision of banking in the United States, and for other purposes." The unspecified
"other purposes" were to give international conspirators a monopoly of all the money and credit
of the people of the United States; to finance World War I through this new central bank, to place
American workers at the mercy of the Federal Reserve system’s collection agency, the Internal
Revenue Service, and to allow the monopolists to seize the assets of their competitors and put
them out of business. Even the present chairman of the House Banking Committee claims that
the Federal Reserve is a government agency, and that it is not privately owned. The fact is that
the government has never owned a single share of Federal Reserve Bank stock. This charade
stems from the fact that the President of the United States appoints the Governors of the Federal
Reserve Board, who are then confirmed by the Senate. The secret author of the Act, banker Paul
Warburg, a representative of the Rothschild bank, coined the name "Federal" from thin air for
the Act, which he wrote to achieve two of his pet aspirations, an "elastic currency", read (rubber
check), and to facilitate trading in acceptances, international trade credits. Warburg was founder
and president of the International Acceptance Corporation, and made billions in profits by
trading in this commercial paper. Sec. 7 of the Federal Reserve Act provides "Federal reserve
banks, including the capital and surplus therein, and income derived therefrom, shall be exempt
from Federal, state and local taxation, except taxes on real estate." Government buildings do not
pay real estate tax. Federal Reserve notes are actually promissory notes, promises to pay, rather
than what we traditionally consider money. They are interest bearing notes issued against interest
bearing government bonds, paper issued with nothing but paper backing, which is known as fiat
money, because it has only the fiat of the issuer to guarantee these notes. The Federal Reserve Act
authorizes the issuance of these notes "for the purposes of making advances to Federal reserve
banks... The said notes shall be obligations of the United States. They shall be redeemed in gold
on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States in the District of Columbia."
Tourists visiting the Bureau of Printing and Engraving on the Mall in Washington, D.C. view the
printing of Federal Reserve notes at this governmental agency on contract from the Federal
Reserve System for the nominal sum of .00260 each in units of 1,000, at the same price regardless
of the denomination. These notes, printed for a private bank, then become liabilities and
obligations of the United States government and are added to our present $7 trillion debt. The
government had no debt when the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913. The dynastic families
of the ruling World Order, internationalists who are loyal to no race, religion, or nation. They are
families such as the Rothschilds, the Warburgs, the Schiffs, the Rockefellers, the Harrimans, the
Morgans and others known as the elite, or "the big rich".
The Federal Reserve Act stipulates that the stock of the Federal Reserve Banks cannot be bought
or sold on any stock exchange. It is passed on by inheritance as the fortune of the "big rich".
Almost half of the owners of Federal Reserve Bank stock are not Americans. Although listed as
part of the Treasury Department, the IRS is actually a private collection agency for the Federal
Reserve System. It originated as the Black Hand in mediaeval Italy, collectors of debt by force
and extortion for the ruling Italian mob families. All personal income taxes collected by the IRS
492
are required by law to be deposited in the nearest Federal Reserve Bank, under Sec. 15 of the
Federal Reserve Act, "The moneys held in the general fund of the Treasury may be ....deposited
in Federal reserve banks, which banks, when required by the Secretary of the Treasury, shall act
as fiscal agents of the United States." The Federal Reserve Board of Governors, meeting in
private as the Federal Open Market Committee with presidents of the Federal Reserve Banks,
controls all economic activity throughout the United States by issuing orders to buy government
bonds on the open market, creating money out of nothing and causing inflationary pressure, or,
conversely, by selling government bonds on the open market and extinguishing debt, creating
deflationary pressure and causing the stock market to drop.
The last provision of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, Sec. 30, states, "The right to amend, alter
or repeal this Act is expressly reserved." This language means that Congress can at any time
move to abolish the Federal Reserve System, or buy back the stock and make it part of the
Treasury Department, or to altar the System as it sees fit. It has never done so. Today the Fed is
discussed openly in the news section and the financial pages. There are bills in congress to have
the Fed audited by the Government Accounting Office. Because of my expose, it is no longer a
sacred cow, although the Big Three candidates for President in 1992, Bush, Clinton and Perot,
joined in a unanimous chorus during the debates that they were pledged not to touch the Fed.
There have been some encouraging defections in recent months. A front page story in the Wall
Street Journal, Feb. 8, 1993, stated, "The current Fed structure is difficult to justify in a
democracy. It’s an oddly undemocratic institution. Its organization is so dated that there is only
one Reserve bank west of the Rockies, and two in Missouri...Having a central bank with a
monopoly over the issuance of the currency in a democratic society is a very difficult balancing
act."
Here's A Recap:
Who Is Running America?
Have you ever asked that question?
Under the doctrine of Parens Patriae, "Government As Parent", as a result of the manipulated
bankruptcy of the United States of America in 1930, ALL the assets of the American people, their
person, and of our country itself are held by the Depository Trust Corporation at 55 Water Street,
NY, NY, secured by UCC Commercial Liens, which are then monetized as "debt money" by the
Federal Reserve. It may interest you to know that under the umbrella of the Depository Trust
Corporation lies the CEDE Corporation, the Federal Reserve Corporation, the American Bar
Association, the legal arm of the banking interests, and the Internal Revenue Service, the
system's collection agency.
Now you know who is running America!
You might want to take exception to the name on the marquee at the entrance to 55 Water Street.
"Tower of Power"
The Independent Treasury Act of 1920 suspended the de jure (meaning "by right of legal
establishment") Treasury Department of the United States government. Our Congress turned the
treasury department over to a private corporation, which when seen in its true light, is a fascist
monopolistic cartel, the Federal Reserve and their agents. The bulk of the ownership of the
493
Federal Reserve System, a very well kept secret from the American Citizen, is held by these
banking interests, and NONE is held by the United States Treasury:
Rothschild Bank of London
Rothschild Bank of Berlin
Warburg Bank of Hamburg
Warburg Bank of Amsterdam
Lazard Brothers of Paris
Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy
Chase Manhattan Bank of New York
Goldman, Sachs of New York
Lehman Brothers of New York
Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York
The Federal Reserve is at the root of most of our present statutory regulations, "laws", in the
control and regulation of virtually all aspects of human activity in the United States, through
successively socialistic constructions laid upon the Commerce clause of the Constitution.
Basically, the Federal Reserve is the "STATE" of the United States.
All our law is private law, written by The National Law Institute, Law Professors, and the Bar
Association, the Agents of Foreign Banking interests. They have come to this position of writing
the law by fraudulently deleting the "Titles of Nobility and Honour" Thirteenth Amendment
from the Constitution for the United States, creating an oligarchy of Lawyers and Bankers
controlling all three branches of our government. Most of our law comes directly through the
Hague or the U.N. Almost all U.N. treaties have been codified into the U.S. codes. That's where all
our educational programs originate. The U.N. controls our education system.
The Federal Register Act was created by Pres. Roosevelt in 1935. Title 3 sec. 301 et seq. by
Executive Order. He gave himself the power to create federal agencies and appoint a head of the
agency. He then re-delegated his authority to make law (statutory regulations) to those agency
heads. One big problem there, the president has no constitutional authority to make law. Under
the Constitution re-delegation of delegated authority is a felony breach.
The president then gave the agencies the authority to tax. We now have government by
appointment running this country. This is the shadow government sometimes spoken about, but
never referred to as government by appointment. This type of government represents taxation
without representation.
Perhaps this is why some people believe the Constitution was suspended. It wasn't suspended, it
was buried in bureaucratic red tape.
Now, it is an historical fact that with the Declaration of Independence, to provide a united effort
during and after the War for Independence, the Colonies as independent nations joined together
under the Articles of Confederation, and as Independent Sovereign States drew up constitutions
which formed governments to serve the people of each former colony. The Articles of
Confederation, after a period of 8 years, were determined to have several flaws. The Congress of
delegates called a Convention in 1787 to correct the flaws. The Convention, instead of modifying
the Articles of Confederation as directed, in secret sessions took it upon themselves to write an
494
entirely new Constitution, which when ratified by the State Conventions of the Freemen of the
Individual States, created the Federal government to serve them in those areas where the States
operating individually could not effectively serve. In this new Constitution the people and the
States delegated to the Federal government certain responsibilities, reserving all rights not so
enumerated to the States and to the People in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. As a
consequence, the responsibility of the State became one of protecting the people from the tyranny
of federal government, to insure that the federal government did not reach beyond the bounds of
the Constitution. This worked fairly effectively, until 1933 when Roosevelt assumed office.
The Conference of Chief Justices, Conference of State Court Administrators, the National
Associations of Attorney Generals, Secretaries of State and State Auditors, State Purchasing
Offices, Lieutenant Governors, and State Legislators, and the Governors of the 50 states
comprise the membership of the Council of State Governments. The Council of State
Governments is located at 676 N. ST. Clair, Chicago, Illinois 60611.
The Council of State Governments has now been absorbed into the National Conference on
Uniform State Laws run by the Bar Association.
The movement for uniform state laws dates back more than a century. The Alabama State Bar
called for uniformity as early as 1881, but it was nearly a decade later, at the 12th annual meeting
of the ABA in 1889, that the legal community made its formal motion to work for uniformity in
the then 44 state union. New York was the first state to move, appointing three commissioners in
1890. Other states soon heeded the call: Delaware, Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York,
New Jersey, and Pennsylvania attended the first Conference in Saratoga Springs, New York, in
1892. The commissioners wasted no time. They urged adoption of three acts and proposed raising
the marrying age to 18 for males and 16 for females. They also adopted a table of weights and
measures, noting that with the exception of wheat, legal weights of a bushel varied in all the
states.
By the turn of the century, 33 states and two territories had appointed commissioners on uniform
laws. In 1910, only Nevada and the Territory of Alaska still had not; they came aboard in 1912.
100 YEARS OF UNIFORM LAWS
An Abridged Chronology
1890 - New York state legislature passes first state act authorizing governor to appoint three
commissioners. The American Bar Association (ABA) recommends that other states follow New
York's lead.
1891 - Connecticut's Lyman D. Brewster named to chair newly-created ABA committee on
uniform law. Pennsylvania, Michigan, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Delaware appoint
commissioners.
1892 - First conference held in Saratoga Springs New York. Above states plus Georgia attend
formal meeting.
1893 - Committees appointed on such subjects as wills, marriage and divorce, commercial law,
descent and distribution.
495
1895 - Conference requests committee on commercial law be formed. Drafts, Negotiable
Instrument Law, precursor to Article 3 of Uniform Commercial Code.
1896 - Negotiable Instrument Law approved by Conference. First time that a uniform act is
adopted in every state and the District of Columbia.
1897 - For the first time, Commissioners urged to work toward enactment of uniform legislation
in their states.
1898/1899 - Sessions devoted to the consideration of proposed divorce legislation.
1899 - At the end of the 1890s, 33 of the existing 45 states and two territories had appointed
uniform law commissioners and eight uniform acts had been drafted, each enacted in at least one
state. All these acts were subsequently superseded or declared obsolete.
1900 - Uniform Divorce Procedure Act adopted. Louis B. Brandeis begins five years of service as
member of Massachusetts commission.
1901 - Woodrow Wilson begins tenure (until 1908) as commissioner from New Jersey.
1903 - ABA makes first appropriation in support of work of Conference. James Barr Ames of
Harvard Law School commissioned to draft the Uniform Partnership Act.
1905 - Samuel W. Pennypacker, Pennsylvania Governor, invites other governors to send
delegation to a national divorce conference--meets twice in 1906; three acts endorsed.
1906 - First roll call by states as Uniform Warehouse Receipts Act is approved. Legal scholar
Roscoe Pound serves for one year as a commissioner from Nebraska.
1907 - Uniform Desertion Act and Non-Support Act and Uniform Marriage Act authorized. Act
Regulating Annulment of Marriage of Divorce adopted. Also, Act Providing for the Return of
Marriage Statistics, Act Providing for the Return of Divorce Statistics.
1908 - Work begins on Uniform Corporation Act.
1910 - Twenty uniform acts approved in decade of the teens. The Uniform Partnership Act, begun
in 1906, was completed by William Draper Lewis, Dean of the University of Pennsylvania Law
School.
1911 - Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act and Uniform Child Labor Act approved.
1912 - Uniform Marriage Evasion Act adopted. Woodrow Wilson, commissioner from New Jersey
from 1901 to 1908 elected U.S. President in a landslide.
1914 - Uniform Partnership Act completed. Will be adopted by all the states. Also Foreign
Acknowledgement Act, Cold Storage Act, Workmens's Compensation Act.
1915 - Name changed to National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.
Constitution and by-laws completely revised. Each act now must be considered section by section
during at least two annual meetings.
496
1916 - Uniform Limited Partnership Act as well as Extradition of Persons of Unsound Minds Act
approved, also Land Registration Act.
1917 - Uniform Flag Act approved.
1918 - Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act approved.
1920 - Certain Acts withdrawn; others declared obsolete. After pruning, 26 acts remain as
recommended for passage in state legislatures.
1930 - During the 30s, Conference adopts 31 acts.
1935 - Conference entered into agreement with American Law Institute for cooperative drafting
of acts in area of common interest.
1936 - After revisions, withdrawals and acts declared obsolete, 53 uniform acts remained as
recommended for approval.
On April 25, 1938, the Supreme Court overturned the standing precedents of the prior 150 years
concerning "COMMON LAW" in the federal government.
"THERE IS NO FEDERAL COMMON LAW, AND CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO
DECLARE SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF COMMON LAW applicable IN A STATE, WHETHER
they be LOCAL or GENERAL in their nature, be they COMMERCIAL LAW or a part of LAW
OF TORTS." (See: ERIE RAILROAD CO. vs. THOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L. Ed. 1188)
The Common Law is the fountain source of Substantive and Remedial Rights, if not our very
Liberties. The members and associates of the Bar thereafter formed committees, granted
themselves special privileges, immunities and franchises, and held meetings concerning the
Judicial procedures, and further, to amend laws "to conform to a trend of judicial decisions or to
accomplish similar objectives", including hodgepodging the jurisdictions of Law and Equity
together, which is known today as "One Form of Action." [See: Constitution and By Laws,
Article 3, Section 3.3(c), 1990-91 Reference Book, see also Colorado Methods of Practice, West
Publishing, Vol. 4, pages 2-3, Authors Comments.]
1939 - ABA gets more involved in approval of uniform law products. Thirty-nine acts are
presented to the Board of Governors of the ABA for consideration and approval. During the same
year, all acts on aeronautics and motor vehicles are eliminated as well as the Land Registration
Act, Child Labor Act of 1930, Uniform Divorce Jurisdiction Act, Firearms Act, Marriage Act and
more. Six acts are reclassified as Model acts.
1940 - At start of decade, after deletions, etc., 53 acts out of 93 which had been approved since
the group's founding remain on the books. Drafting committee for the Uniform Commercial Code
(UCC) approved.
1941 - Speaking of the Commercial Code project, the Conference president states: "....this is the
most important and the most far reaching project on which the conference has ever embarked."
It would take the major part of the next 10 tear period to complete.
497
1942 - UCC effort begins in earnest with completion of work on the revised Uniform Sales Act.
1943 - Members of the conference participate in drafting committee in Washington, D.C. to work
on legislation which the government might desire in connection with the war effort. No new acts.
1944 - Conference receives $150,000 grant from the Falk Foundation of Pittsburgh to support
work on the UCC.
1945 - No annual meeting for the first time due to difficulties of civilian transport during the war.
1946 - Falk Foundation increases its support of the UCC with an additional $100,000.
1947 - Uniform Law Conference (ULC) and American Law Institute join in partnership to put all
the components together for the UCC. Uniform Divorce Recognition Act approved.
1950 - Approval of the Uniform Marriage License Application Act, Uniform Adoption Act and the
Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA). The latter has been one of the most
successful ULC products.
1951 - On May 18, during a joint meeting with the American Law Institute in Washington, D.C.,
the UCC was approved. Later that year the ABA formally approved the code as well. Considered
the outstanding accomplishment of the Conference, the Code remains the ULC's signature
product.
One of the Uniform Laws drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform
State Laws and the American Law Institute governing commercial transactions (including sales
and leasing of goods, transfer of funds, commercial paper, bank deposits and collections, letters of
credit, bulk transfers, warehouse receipts, bills of lading, investment securities, and secured
transactions), The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), has been adopted in whole or substantially
by all states. (See: Blacks Law, 6th Ed. pg. 1531) In essence, all court decisions are based on
commercial law or business law and has criminal penalties associated with it. Rather than openly
calling this new law Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction, it is called Statutory Jurisdiction.
America as a bankrupt nation is owned completely by its creditors.
The creditors own the Congress, they own the Executive, they own the Judiciary and they own all
the State governments. Do you have a Birth Certificate? They own you too.
1952 - Uniform Rules of Criminal Procedure approved---first venture of the Conference into this
area of the law.
1953 - Pennsylvania the first state to enact the UCC. Uniform Rules of Evidence adopted.
1954 - Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act approved.
1956 - Gift to Minors Act approved. Will be adopted in every state. For the first time, ULC enters
the field of international law.
1957 - Massachusetts becomes second state to enact the UCC, after revisions by the Editorial
498
Board.
1958 - Uniform Securities Act approved.
1960 - Uniform Paternity Act passed. by 1960, UCC enacted in Kentucky, Connecticut, New
Hampshire and Rhode Island.
1961 - Permanent Editorial Board on the UCC formed---8 more states pass UCC. Constitution
amended to provide that all members of Conference must be members of the bar.
1962 - Four more states adopt UCC, including New York. Probate Code project approved.
1963 - Third comprehensive law project approved, on retail installment sales, consumer credit,
small loans and usury. Eleven more UCC states. William H. Renquist begins term as
commissioner from Arizona; serves until 1968.
1964 - Special Committee of Uniform Divorce and Marriage laws recommends that a study of
divorce law be authorized and that funds be sought. One more UCC state.
1965 - Divorce and Marriage Law committee instructed to commence drafting if funds can be
obtained for the project. Thirteen more UCC states.
1966 - Five more UCC states.
1968 - Much of annual meeting devoted to the Uniform Consumer Credit Code and the Uniform
Probate Code ---two projects nearing completion. By 1968, 49 states, the District of Columbia
and U.S. Virgin Islands have enacted the UCC---only exception being Louisiana. A big year.
Other developments in 1968: the Consumer Credit Code is approved as well as revisions to the
Anatomical Gift Act, Child Custody Jurisdiction Act and revisions to URESA.
1969 - Probate Code approved. Preliminary analysis of the uniform marriage and divorce
legislation distributed.
1970 - Controlled Substances Act and Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act approved.
1971 - Uniform Alcoholism and Intoxication Act approved.
1972 - Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, Disposition of Community Property Rights
At Death Act and UMVARA, the Uniform Motor Vehicle Accident Reparations Act approved.
1973 - Uniform Parentage Act supersedes Paternity Act. Uniform Crime Victims Reparations Act
approved.
1974 - Conference approves Rules of Criminal Procedure and Eminent Domain Code. Louisiana,
the only state not to adopt the Uniform Commercial Code due to difficulties in reconciling its
provisions with those of the Civil Code, adopts Articles 1,3,4,5,7, and 8.
1975 - Uniform Land Transactions Act approved.
1976 - Major revision of the Uniform Partnership Act approved; also Uniform Simplification of
499
Land Transfers and Uniform Class Action Acts.
1978 - Uniform Brain Death and Uniform Federal Lien Registration Act approved.
1979 - Uniform Trade Secrets and Durable Power of Attorney acts among those approved.
1980 - Determination of Death Act supersedes 1978 Brain Death Act. Uniform Planned
Community Act, Model Real Estate Time-Share Act and Model Periodic Payment of Judgments
Act also adopted.
1981 - Two important updated acts approved: new Model State Administration Procedure and
Unclaimed Property Acts. Also two new acts: the Model Real Estate Cooperative Act and the
Uniform Conservation Easement Act.
1982 - Uniform Condominium and Planned Community Acts and Model Real Estate Cooperative
Act combined into the Uniform Common Interest Ownership act.
The enumerated, specified, and distinct Jurisdictions established by the ordained Constitution
(1789), Article III, Section 2, and under the Bill of Rights (1791), Amendment VII, were further
hodgepodged and fundamentally changed in 1982 to include Admiralty Jurisdiction, which was
once again brought inland. This was the FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE necessary to effect
unification of CIVIL and ADMIRALTY PROCEDURE. Just as 1938 Rules ABOLISHED THE
DISTINCTION between Actions At Law and Suits in Equity, this CHANGE WOULD ABOLISH
THE DISTINCTION between CIVIL ACTIONS and SUITS IN ADMIRALTY." (See: Federal
Rules of Procedure, 1982 Ed., pg. 17. Also see Federalist Papers, No. 83, Declaration Of Resolves
Of The First Continental Congress, Oct. 14th, 1774, Declaration Of Cause And Necessity Of
Taking Up Arms, July 16, 1775, Declaration Of Independence, July 4, 1776, Bennet vs.
Butterworth, 52 U.S. 669)
1983 - Uniform Marital Property Act and Uniform Premarital agreement Act approved. Uniform
Transfers to Minors Act replaces the uniformly enacted Uniform Gifts to Minors Act.
1984 - Uniform Statutory Will Act approved; new Uniform fraudulent Transfer Act supersedes
Fraudulent Conveyance Act of 1918.
1985 - Uniform Health-Care Information Act, Uniform Land Security Interest act, Uniform
Personal Property Leasing Act and Uniform Rights of the Terminally Ill Act approved.
1986 - New drafting effort to revise Articles 3 and 4 of the UCC and draft new provisions begins.
1987 - Approval of the revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act approved as well as new Uniform
Custodial Trust Act, Uniform Construction Lien Act and Uniform Franchise and Business
Opportunities Act. Also revision of Rules of Criminal Procedure.
1988 - Final approval of amendments to the Uniform Securities Act and amendments to Article 6
of the UCC dealing with bulk sales. Conference also approves Uniform Statutory Form Power of
Attorney Act and Uniform Punitive and Unknown Fathers Act and takes on the controversial
issue of surrogate mother contracts with Uniform Status of Children of Assisted Conception Act.
1989 - Article 4A of the UCC, dealing with electronic funds transfers, approved. Also approved:
500
amendments to the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, authorizing withdrawal of life support by a
surrogate decision maker; the Uniform Pretrial Detention Act, confining violent criminals before
trial; the Uniform Non-probate Transfers on Death Act and amendments to Article VI of the
Uniform Probate Code.
1990 - Major revision of 1970 Uniform Controlled Substances Act-- the law in 46 jurisdictions--
approved. Substantial revision of UCC Article 3 also approved, as well as an updated Article II of
the Uniform Probate Code, to keep pace with current thinking on marital property.
This private corruption of the law has occurred despite the Constitutional responsibility
conferred on Congress by Article I, Section 8 of the Federal Constitution which states that it is
Congress that "makes all Laws."
An Expose On The Legal Fraud Perpetrated On All Americans
THE COURTS RECOGNIZE ONLY TWO CLASSES OF PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES
TODAY: DEBTORS AND CREDITORS
The concept of DEBTORS and CREDITORS is very important to understand.
Every legal action where you are brought before the court: e.g. traffic ticket, property dispute or
permits, income tax, credit cards, bank loans or anything else government might dream up to
charge you where you find yourself in front of a court. It is an equity court, administrating
commercial law having a debtor-creditor law as the controlling law. Today, we have an equity
court but not an equity court as defined by the Constitution of the United States or any other
legal documents before 1938.
All the courts of this once great land have been changed starting with the Supreme Court
decision of 1938 in ERIE V. THOMPKINS. I'll give you background which led to this decision.
There is a terrible FRAUD being perpetrated on all Americans. Please understand that this fraud
is a 24 hour, 7 days a week, year after year continuous fraud. This fraud is constantly upon you
all your life. It doesn't just happen once in a while. This fraud is perpetually and incessantly upon
you and your family.
U.S. INC. GOES TO GENEVA 1930's
In order for you to understand just how this fraud works, you need to know the history of its
inception.
It goes like this: From 1928 -1932 there were five years of Geneva conventions. The nations of the
world met in Geneva Switzerland for 5 continuous years in order to set up what would be the
policy of all the participating countries. During the year of 1930 the U.S., Great Britain, France,
Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal etc. all declared bankruptcy. If you try to look up the 1930
minutes, you will not find them because they don't publish this particular volume. If you try to
find the 1930 volume which contains the minutes of what happened, you will probably not find it.
This volume has been pulled out of circulation or is hidden in the library and is very hard to find.
This volume contains the evidence of the bankruptcy.
Going into 1932, they stopped meeting in Geneva. In 1932 Franklin Roosevelt came into power as
President of the United States. Roosevelt's job was to put into place and administer the
bankruptcy that had been declared two years earlier. The corporate government needed a key
501
Supreme Court decision. The corporate United States government had to have a legal case on the
books to set the stage for recognizing, implementing and supporting the bankruptcy. Now. this
doesn't mean the bankruptcy wasn't implemented before 1938 with the Erie vs. Thompkins
decision. The bankruptcy started in 1930-1931. The bankruptcy definitely started when Roosevelt
came into office. He was sworn in during the month of January 1933. He started right away in
the bankruptcy with what is known as 'The Banking Holiday," and proceeded in pulling the gold
coin out of circulation. That was the beginning of the corporate United States Public Policy for
bankruptcy.. Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111 & Executive Order 6260 "Trading With The
Enemy Act."
ROOSEVELT STACKS SUPREME COURT
It is a known historical fact that during 1933 and 1937 - 1938, there was a big fight between
Roosevelt and the Supreme Court Justices. Roosevelt tried to stack the Supreme court with a
bunch of his pals. Roosevelt tried to enlarge the number of justices and he tried to change the
slant of the justices. The corporate United States had to have one Supreme Court case which
would support their bankruptcy problem.
There was resistance to Roosevelt's court stacking efforts. Some of the justices tried to warn us
that Roosevelt was tampering with the law and with the courts. Roosevelt was trying to see to it
that prior decisions of the court were overturned. He was trying to bring in a new order, a new
procedure for the law of the land. See also The UCC Connection
THE CORPORATE UNITED STATES GOES BANKRUPT
A bankruptcy case was needed on the books to legitimize the fact that the corporate U.S. had
already declared bankruptcy! This bankruptcy was effectuated by compact that the corporate
several states had with the corporate government (Corporate Capitol of the several corporate
states). This compact tied the corporate several states to corporate Washington D.C, (the
headquarters of the corporation called "The United States").
Since the United States Corporation, having established its headquarters within the District of
Columbia, declared itself to be in the state of bankruptcy, it automatically declared bankruptcy
for all its subsidiaries who were effectively connected corporate members (who happened to be
the corporate state governments of the Union). The corporate state governments didn't have to
vote on the bankruptcy. The bankruptcy automatically became effective by reason of the
Compact/Agreement between each of the corporate state governments and THE MOTHER
CORPORATION. (Note: the liberty of using the term "Mother Corporation" to communicate
the interconnected power of the corporate Federal government relative to her associated
corporate States has been taken.
It is Historical knowledge that the original Union States created the Federal Government,
however, for all practical purposes, the Federal government has taken control of her "Creators",
the States.) She has become a beast out of control for power. She has for her trade names the
following: "United States", "U.S.", "U.S.A.", "United States of America", Washington D.C.,
District of Columbia, Feds. and Federal Government. She has her own U.S. Army, Navy, Air
Force, Marines, Parks, Post Office etc. etc. etc. Because she is claiming to be bankrupt, she freely
gives her land, her personnel, and the money she steals from the Americans via the IRS. and her
state corporations, to the United Nations and the International Bankers as payment for her debt.
The UN and the International Bankers use this money and services for various world wide
502
projects, including war.
War is an extremely lucrative business for the bankers of the New World Order. Loans for
destruction. Loans for re-construction. Loans for controlling people in her new world order.
THE U.S. INC. DECLARES BANKRUPTCY
The corporate U.S. then, is the head corporate member, who met at Geneva to decide for all its
corporate body members. The corporate representatives of the corporate several states were in
attendance. If the states had their own power to declare bankruptcy regardless of whether
Washington D.C. declared bankruptcy or not, then the several states would have been
represented at Geneva. The several states of America were not represented. Consequently,
whatever Washington D.C. agreed to at Geneva was passed on automatically, via compact to the
several corporate states as a group, association, corporation or as a club member; they all agreed
and declared bankruptcy as one government corporate group in 1930. The several states only
needed a representative at Geneva by way of the U.S. in Washington D.C. The delegates of the
corporate United States attended the meetings and spoke for the several corporate states as well
as for the Federal Corporate Government. And, presto, BANKRUPTCY was declared for all!
From 1930 to 1938 the states could not enact any law or decide any case that would go against the
Federal Government. The case had to come down from the Federal level so that the states could
then rely on the Federal decision and use this decision within the states as justification for the
bankruptcy process within the states.
UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE EMERGES AS LAW OF THE LAND
Ah, Ha, are you beginning to get the picture?
By 1938 the corporate Federal Government had the true bankruptcy case they had been looking
for. Now, the bankruptcy that had been declared back in 1930 could be upheld and administered.
That's why the Supreme Court had to be stacked and made corrupt from within. The new
players on the Supreme Court fully understood that they had to destroy all other case law that
had been established prior to 1938. The Federal Government had to have a case to destroy all
precedent, all appearance, and even the statute of law itself. That is, the Statutes at large had to
be perverted. They finally got their case in Erie vs. Thompkins. It was right after that case that
the American Law Institute and the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State
Laws listed right in the front of the Uniform Commercial Code, began creating the Uniform
Commercial Code that is on our backs today. Let us quote directly from the preface of the
Official Text of the Uniform Commercial Code 12th Edition:
"The Code was originally approved by its sponsors and the American Bar Association in 1952,
and was revised in 1958 to incorporate a number of changes that had been recommended by the
New York Law Revision Commission and other agencies. Subsequent amendments that were
deemed desirable in light of experience under the Code were approved by the Permanent
Editorial Board in 1962 and 1966"
The above named groups and associations of private lawyers got together and started working on
the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). It was somewhere between 1938 and 1940, I don't recall,
but by the early 40's and during the war, this committee was working to form the UCC and
503
getting it ready to go on the market. The UCC is the Law Merchant's code for the administration
of the bankruptcy. The UCC is now the law of the land as far as the courts are concerned. This
Legal Committee of lawyers put everything: Negotiable Instruments, Security, Sales, Contracts,
and the whole mess under the UCC. That's where the "Uniform" word comes from. It means it
was uniform from state to state as well as being uniform with the District of Columbia.
It doesn't mean you didn't have the uniform instrument laws on the books before this time. It
means the laws were not uniform from state to state. By the middle 1960's, every state had passed
the UCC into law. The states had no choice but to adopt newly formed Uniform Commercial
Code as the Law of the Land. The states fully understood they had to administrate Bankruptcy.
Washington D.C. adopted the Uniform Commercial Code in 1963, just six weeks after President
John F. Kennedy was killed.
YOUR LAWYER'S SECRET OATH???
What was the effect and the significance of Erie vs. Thompkins case decision of 1938? The
significance is that since the Erie Decision, no cases are allowed to be cited that are prior to 1938.
There can be no mixing of the old law with the new law. The lawyers, who are members of the
American Bar Association, were and are currently under and controlled by the Lawyer's guild of
Great Britain, created, formed, and implemented the new bankruptcy law. The American Bar
Association is a franchise of the Lawyer's Guild of Great Britain.
Since the Erie vs. Thompkins case was decided, the practice of law in this country was never
again to be the same. It has been reported, that every lawyer in existence, and every lawyer
coming up has to take a "secret" oath to support bankruptcy. As Officers of the Court they have
sworn to uphold the law as it exists, and as they have been taught. In so doing, not only do the
lawyers promise to support the bankruptcy, but the lawyers and judges promise never to reveal
who the true creditor/party is in the bankruptcy proceedings (if, indeed, many of them are even
aware or know). In court, there is never identification and appearance of the true character and
principle of the proceedings. If there is no appearance of the true party to the action, then there is
no way the defendant is able to know the TRUE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACTION. You
are never told the true NATURE AND CAUSE OF WHY YOU ARE IN FRONT OF THEIR
COURT. The court is forbidden to tell you that information.
That's why, if you question the true nature and cause, the judge will tell you "It's not my job to
tell you. You are not retaining me as an attorney and I can't give you legal advice from the bench.
I suggest you hire a lawyer."
HIRE A LAWYER?
The problem here is, if you hire a lawyer who is pledged not to reveal the true nature and the
cause, how will you ever find out the nature and the cause? YOU WON'T! If the true nature and
the cause of the action against you is revealed, it will expose the real creditor from whom this
action and cause came. In other words, they will have to name the TRUE creditor. The true
creditor will have to state the nature and the cause. The true creditor will have to say "It's a
bankruptcy proceeding." The true creditor will have to say, "I'm the creditor and he's the
debtor."
504
That declaration would open the door for you to question "Who the hell are you? How did you
get attached to my back and by what vehicle did I promise to become a debtor to you?" In this
country, the courts on every level, from the justice of the peace level all the way up...... even into
the International law arena, (called the World Court), are administrating the bankruptcy and are
pledged not to reveal who the true creditors really are and how you personally became pledged as
a party or participant to the corporate United States debt. What would really kill these people
off, would be to compel the International Bankers to send a lawyer into the courtroom and
present himself as the attorney for THE TRUE CREDITOR, THE INTERNATIONAL
BANKERS. THEN, HAVE THE ATTORNEY PUT INTO THE RECORD THE TRUE NATURE
AND CAUSE OF THE PROCEEDING AGAINST YOU ON THAT PARTICULAR DAY.
The International Bankers told these various countries that they were now in a state of
bankruptcy. The countries had been taken over by the creditor/bankers. And there was no choice,
but for all these participating countries to declare bankruptcy. If they didn't agree to declare
bankruptcy, the bankers threatened to collapse the economies and thereby put the countries back
into the depression like the one from which they were just emerging. The bankers made an offer
they couldn't refuse. To review and elaborate: In 1930 there was a world wide depression.
The Bankers said, "Look. You can do it either of two ways. The easy way or the hard way." "You
just accept the bankruptcy and we'll let you out of the depression. If you don't, you're on your
own." So all the countries involved agreed, because they realized that the International bankers
had them by the throat. The countries therefore agreed that over a period of several years that
they would pass statutes and legislation for the implementation of the bankruptcy in favor of the
international bankers.
Now, it would probably be correct to say that the key bankers were the Rothschild's and their
agents by way of Rockefeller, by way of the Federal Reserve Bank. Who the bankers were is
immaterial. The fact remains that there was an International bankruptcy, and an International
conspiracy to cover it up. There was a banking creditor who made the offer; the countries
accepted the offer in order to enable the representative countries to continue without revolution
and to allow the politicians to remain comfortably in place. Under a delusion of solvency the
countries were allowed to continue to operate as though they were solvent; while in fact, the
representative countries were bankrupt.
THE SNARE
The bankruptcy scheme was/is an extremely clever and diabolical plan. How did they possibly
pull this scheme off in the area of real estate? The bankers did it with real estate, the same way
they did it in the area of Federal Income Taxes. These Foreign bankers simply and deceptively
devised ways and means to con you into declaring yourself as a "CITIZEN" or a "RESIDENT"
of the corporate U.S. Remember the corporate United States is Bankrupt per agreement and
public policy. After you have been tricked into claiming you are one of their corporate United
States Citizens, you are given a social security number which ties you to certain meager
"benefits" and "privileges."Then, the bankers con your employer to function as an unpaid tax
collector to con you into filling out their W-4 intangible property gift forms and 1040 voluntary
agreements.
These slick paper agreements establish your "voluntary" indebtedness to the banker creditor. If
at any time you decide to balk at this scheme because you don't like it, the real creditor never has
505
to make an appearance in court to list the true nature and cause of the action which is being
brought against you. You end up dealing with an agency. The agency can conveniently grant itself
immunity from prosecution because all it is doing (without your knowledge, of course) is
administrating the bankruptcy to which the government agreed to per the Geneva meetings.
The court system never lets you put the original creditor on the courtroom stand, so you can ask
him how he got attached to your back. The system is set up in such a way that the true creditor is
protected and never has to make an appearance and never has to answer any of your questions or
produce documents. Therefore, the true creditor never has to produce the law that gives him the
right to pledge you (your body and labor) into indebtedness (bondage/servitude).
Why? Because the Geneva agreement in 1930 was done by treaty. The bankruptcy was not done
by legislation. The agreement came first; signed in secrecy, THEN Congress began to pass
legislation to fulfill the bankruptcy obligation required by the treaty. Legislation being passed by
Congress was henceforth and is thereby bankruptcy legislation. When cases came before the
courts, the courts could make decisions based on the new controlling law of bankruptcy. It had
nothing to do with Constitutional rights. Now, any case brought in is under the new bankruptcy
law and is not considered as a true constitutional case. It is now a bankrupty case as distinct
from, but cleverly disguised as a constitutional case.
THE FRAUD
The members of the Supreme Court, of course, realized what was happening to them and the
system of law. The court was being asked to perform in a creditor, debtor bankrupt proceeding to
the benefit of the banker creditors. The members of the Supreme Court said, "NO. We will not
give you a bankrupt proceeding decision that you can then enforce against everybody; a decision
not only effecting corporate Washington D.C. but also having effect within the corporate state
governments."
This, by the way, is fraud. It wouldn't be fraud if the government of corporate Washington D.C.
and the government of the several corporate states declared bankruptcy then let the people know
about the bankruptcy. (Notice: when I say corporate "government" I don't mean you and me.
You and I are not the corporate government. The corporate government is the corporate capital
of the corporate state. The government is a neutral government zone known as the corporate
capital of the corporate state. The government is where the corporate state is. It is corporate
headquarters. Just like corporate Washington D.C. is the seat of the corporate Federal
Government. The capital of the corporate state is the seat of the corporate state government. If
the corporate Federal Government and her subsidiary corporate state governments want to join
forces and declare bankruptcy that's not fraud. This is their corporate business.
However, it is fraud when those two corporate entities declare bankruptcy but do not disclose to
you, me, and every other American, that they have so declared bankruptcy.
Further they have not and do not disclose that their intention is to get you and every other
American in this country to pledge to pay off their corporate debt to their corporate creditors.
The corporate bankruptcy is the corporate state and federal responsibility, not the responsibility
of Americans, The People.
506
U.S. INC. IS DISTINCT AND SEPARATE FROM PRIVATE AMERICANS
"We the People" who created and signed the contract/compact/agreement/charter of, by, and for
the Constitutional Corporation (U.S.) using the trade name of the "United States of America," is
a corporate entity (legal fiction) which is DISTINCT AND SEPARATE from Americans or the
unenfranchised people of America. The private natural American people did not create the
corporation of the United States. The United States Inc. did not create the private natural
American people. America and Americans were in existence prior to the creation of the United
States Corporation. The United States Corporation has located its U.S. headquarters in
Washington D.C.
Virginia State (state territory) gave land to the newly formed United States Corporation. Notice
here, we have a state giving something of value (land) to the United States. The United Stales
Corporation agreed in the Constitutional contract, to protect the States. Instead, because of their
bankruptcy (Corporate U.S. Bankruptcy) this particular U.S. corporation has enslaved the States
and the people by deception and at the will of their foreign bankers with whom they have been
doing business. Our forefathers gave their lives and property to prevent enslavement.
Today, we are again enslaved. Private natural American people have been tricked, deceived, and
set-up to carry the U.S. Inc. perpetual corporate debt under bankruptcy laws. Every time
Americans appear in court, the corporate U.S. bankruptcy is being administrated against them
without their knowledge and lawful consent. That is FRAUD.
All corporate bankruptcy administration is done by "Public Policy" of by and for the Mother
Corporation (U.S. Inc.).
THE MOTHER CORPORATION'S "PUBLIC POLICY"
The corporate bankruptcy is carried out under the corporate public policy of the corporate
Federal Government in corporate Washington D.C. The states use state public policy to carry out
Federal public policy of Washington D.C. Public policy and only public policy is being
administered against you in the corporate courts today. The public policy that is dictated by all
the courts, from the smallest to the most powerful courts in the world, is public policy. This is
why I said, in another tape that the Russian people would be enslaved into indebtedness. What
will happen is that it will become public policy in Russia to have the people go into joint
corporate debt. The Russians will be forced to promise to pay those debts. They will be forced to
pay off on those corporate debts. Corporate public policy is the crux of the whole bankruptcy
implementation. Corporate public policy is forever a Corporate public policy and the laws that
have passed since 1938 are all corporate public policy laws dealing only with corporate public
policy. Understand that U.S. corporate public policy is not an American public policy. The public
policy is OF, ( belonging to) the United States corporation. This U.S. corporate bankruptcy
public policy is not OF (belonging to) America, the Republic.
The Erie vs. Thompkins 1938 case was a decision based upon public policy. All decisions at any
level since 1938, have been public policy decisions. All statutes, rules, regulations, and procedures
that have been passed, whether civil or criminal, whether it is Federal or State, have all been
passed to implement the public policy of bankruptcy. Since 1933, when FDR came into office, he
brought in public policy. He established that it was the public policy of the overnment to call in
all the gold. It was the public policy of the government to declare a banking holiday. It was the
507
public policy of the Government in Washington D.C., (the Federal Government) to give out
government assistance. Public policy operates the same within the states. All Federal court
decisions can only be handed down if the states support Federal public policy. The state legal
system must be compatible with the Federal legal system.
THE MONKEY-WRENCH
This is why, when people like us go to court without being represented by a lawyer, we throw a
monkey-wrench into their corporate administrative proceedings. Why? Because all public policy
corporate lawyers are pledged to up-hold public policy, which is the corporate U.S.
administration of their corporate bankruptcy. That's why you'll find stamped on many if not all
our briefs, "THIS CASE IS NOT TO BE CITED IN ANY OTHER CASE AND IS NOT TO BE
REPORTED IN ANY COURTS." The reason for this notation is that when we go in to defend
ourselves or file a claim we are not supporting the corporate bankruptcy administration and
procedure. The arguments we put forth predate 1938.
We come in with Constitutional law etc. All these early cases support our rights not to be in
bankruptcy. However, the corporate court, lawyers, and judges have promised to give no judicial
recognition of any case before 1938.
THE INTERNATIONAL BANKERS' CORPORATE PLANTATION USA STYLE
Before 1938, the law was not a public policy law. All these old cases were not public law deciding
cases. Today, the cases are all decided under corporate public policy. The public policy exists in
order to administer the bankruptcy for the benefit of the banker creditors and to protect the
banker creditor.
Corporate public policy can allow the creditor to say to the corporate legislatures, "I want a law
passed requiring my debtors to wear seat belts. Why? Because I want to be able to milk my
debtors for the longest period possible."
It doesn't behoove the creditor to allow all of his labor producing debtors die at an average age 30
years. What would happen to the bankers' lending, interest, penalties, increase, repayment etc.,
on the entire funding and lending process if the average American life span was only 30 years?
Why, the bankers would have to have 2 1/2 times the current consumer population to equal their
current take. The bankers would need (instead of 250 million Americans) 600 million or even
more. Maybe the bankers would need 2 Billion Americans because the individual can't contract
for debt until he/she is 18 or 21 years of age. Therefore, if the average life span is only a 30 year
period, the creditor could collect on the debt for only 12 years.
Now, if the bankers can just get people to live an average of 70 years) you are talking a whopping
50 years of indebtedness for which they contract and for which they are forced to pay back with
usury/interest. With this situation, the banker creditor can now float loans worth 50 years of
potential indebtedness and its payoff with interest in the name of the people, as opposed to 9 to
12 years.
The creditors and their property and their people are well taken care of. The creditor doesn't
want the population to decrease per se, unless, it is convenient for the debtor to run up debts in
508
another's name and then liquidate that debtor or that group of debtor people. For example let's
consider the AIDS problem today among the black people. What better group to inject AIDS into
than the black people?
Read the Strecker Memorandum on AIDS and the World Health Organization connection. This
documents their tainted vaccination program in Africa and elsewhere. Why not kill them off?
Don't you understand that the blacks as a whole have absorbed all the debt that they can? The
blacks have reached the maximum of the debt that they can carry. In fact, they have gone over
their limit to pay back. They are now heavily into welfare, public housing, medicaid, medicare,
food stamps etc.. Now, the situation is that instead of paying off the creditor, they have become a
drain on the creditor. The creditor must now pay them to live and take care of them. What
creditor in his right mind wants to spend money on a bunch of people from whom he can't collect
any revenue?
The corporate public policy of the corporate United States and the states and the county and of
the cities are that YOU must take care of these people. You must provide them with welfare etc.
Why? Because when you, as a member of the corporate body politic allow laws to be passed
which says the minorities must be taken care of, then the corporate legislature can say the public
policy is that the people want these people taken care of. Therefore, when given the chance, the
legislature can say the public policy is that the people want these blacks and poor whites to be
taken care of and given a chance, therefore, we must raise taxes to fund all these benefits,
privileges and opportunities.
This is what these people need to make them socially, politically, and economically equal with
everyone else. The legislatures have passed all kinds of statutes providing for huge indebtedness
and they float the indebtedness off your backs because you have never gone into court to
challenge them by telling them it is not your public policy to assume the debts of other people. On
the contrary, all the court decisions coming put, indicate it is the corporate public policy and it is
your willingness to support the corporate public policy to pay off these debts.
Remember, "public" means of and for the corporate Government. It does not mean of and for
private people. "Public" means corporate government. It is corporate government policy. When
they talk about public debt, they are talking about corporate government debt and your
presumed pledge against this corporate created debt.
THE REAL ESTATE SNARE
How do they work this scheme in the area of real estate? These banker creeps have made an
agreement that it is corporate public policy, that all land (property) be pledged to the creditor to
satisfy the debt of the bankruptcy, which the creditor claims under bankruptcy. They get away
with this the same way they get away with any other case that is brought before the court,
whether it is a traffic ticket, IRS, or whatever.
Here is how it works. You have signed instruments giving information and jurisdiction to the
bankers through their agents. The instruments (forms) you signed include, but are not limited to
the following: social security registration, use of the social security number, IRS forms, driver
license, traffic citation, jury duty, voter registration, using their address, zip code, U.S. postal
service, a deed, a mortgage application, etc. etc. The bankers then use that instrument
(document) under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) as a contract/agreement. These
509
documents are considered promissory contract where you promise to perform. This scheme
involves you, without you ever becoming directly in contact or in contract with the true creditor.
What's more, you are never informed as to whom that true creditor is and it is never divulged to
you the true nature and the true cause of the paperwork that you are filling out.
If you will examine your real estate deed, you will find that you promised to pay taxes to the
corporate government. On property you originally acquired through a mortgage, you will notice
that the bank never promised to pay taxes. You did. The corporate government at all levels never
promised to pay taxes to the creditor. You did.
In tax and collection problems relating to real estate being enforced against you, you will notice
that there is no mention in the mortgage or the deed stating the true nature and cause of the
action. Since you have made the promise to perform, you get a bill every year for property taxes.
You don't realize that the only way they can bill you for taxes is through your own stupidity of
agreeing to pay the tax. You volunteered. They took advantage of you, conning you to promise to
pay properly taxes. When they send you their bill, they are coming against you for the collection
of the promise you made to the creditor.
Now the creditor on the paperwork appears that it is the local bank. The bank has loaned you
credit. The bank hasn't loaned you anything. It is not their credit to loan. This is why the bank
can't loan credit. There is a credit involved, but not the bank's credit. It is the credit of the
International Bankers. The International bankers are making you the loan based upon their
operation of bankruptcy claim which they presume to have against you personally as well as your
property. Now, let's say you get a tax bill and you decide "I'm not going to pay it." You will find
that the courts and the lawyers and the county agencies are set up to protect the true creditor
simply by not identifying the creditor. By not being identified as the true creditor, the
international banker can make you a credit loan that has no value in reality.
In the case of real property, he claims to loan you the use of your own property for which you pay
a tax as rent. He is allowed to do this because you are presumed by statutory law and the banker
to be in bankruptcy. This fraud is not revealed because he does not have to make an appearance
in court to present and defend his claim. His name is not mentioned in the case.
Let's say you are not aware of your remedies provided for you within the Uniform Commercial
Code (UCC). The UCC provides or allows you to dishonor the county's presentment of the tax
bill. You don't pay your tax bill. You, therefore, just sit on it and don't do or say anything. A
couple of years go by and all of a sudden you are being sent letters to pay up what is owed or else
in a certain period of time, your property will be taken from you and put up for tax sale.
Now here is what is interesting........ If you don't pay your tax bill and they contact you asking
you to pay it and you don't do it, they will declare that you are in default. It is based on that
default, as provided for in the UCC, that they sell your property for the tax (rent).
However, the county never goes into court to put into the record the identification of the real
creditor. And the county does not state the true nature and cause of the action against you
(bankruptcy action disguised as a tax action). Why? Because, under bankruptcy implementation,
they have developed a legal procedure which is based upon your promise to pay. This procedure
provides that they don't have to come to the court to get a court order authorizing the sale of
your property. Therefore, the real creditor never makes an appearance in court.
510
The reality is, you are denied any possibility of appearing in court to exercise your right to
challenge the creditor. To ask if he became the creditor under "public policy." To ask if it is under
"public policy", just what is the "public policy?" And how did you (as an international banker)
become "creditor" to me and everyone else in this country (American people). They don't want
you to ask the real creditor (the International Bankers), to produce the documents upon which
your personal debt is established. If they were forced to go into court, they would have to produce
the deed or mortgage showing you knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily promised to pay the
corporate public debt. You did not knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily promise to pay any U.S.
Corporate Bankruptcy obligation made in the 1930's.
This would, of course, expose their racket. The fact is, that, there was absolutely no debt
connected to you until you agreed to it through their deception and fraud. The deception in a
broader sense, permeates the education system and the news media, etc., to sell you on the idea
that you are a statutory "U.S. citizen" and "resident of the United States." (INCORPORATED).
YOUR SIGNATURE IS YOUR MOST VALUABLE PROPERTY
Your property is pledged for the rest of your life upon your signature and your promise to
perform is pledged into perpetual debt. The bankers don't even bother to go to court They leave
it up to the agencies to administer the agency corporate public policy. It is the public policy of
that agency to bill you on your promise to perform. If you don't pay, they follow up on the public
policy on notice of default and give you one more chance to pay. Then they proceed to sell the
property at a tax auction. They never go to court or appear in court to back up their claim
against you. Did any of your government licensed and controlled teachers ever stress that your
signature is your most valuable personal property? Did your government teachers ever tell you
that any time you sign any document, you should sign it "without prejudice," or with "All Rights
Reserved" above your signature. This means you are reserving your God given unalienable rights
which cannot be transferred and all other rights for which your forefathers died.
The Corporate U.S.. Government provides, or at best pretends to provide for this reservation of
rights under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) 1-207 and 1-103. You need more information
in this area. It is not in the best interest of the United States Corporate "PUBLIC" schools to
teach you about their bankruptcy proceedings and how they have set the snare to Compel you
into paying their debt. The Corporate "PUBLIC" schools are strictly designed for their
Corporate citizen/subjects. That is. the Corporate U.S.. Public School citizens.
Notice all the emphases on being a "good" Citizen. Basically all their teachers and their students
are trained to produce labor and material in exchange for valueless green paper called "money."
It is not money, it functions "AS" money. Lawful money must be backed by something of value.
Bankers take your labor, services, and material (homes, cars, farms, etc.) in exchange for their
valueless corporate paper. This paper is backed only by the "full faith and Confidence of the
United States Government" THE MOTHER CORPORATION.
I do not have faith or confidence in the U.S. BANKRUPT CORPORATE GOVERNMENT
ADMINISTRATORS WHO HAVE PERVERTED THEIR Constitutional CHARTER, enslaving
the sovereign American people into their bankruptcy obligations. Their fraudulent money
laundering process promotes your payment on the corporate government's bankruptcy debt. This
debt is mathematically impossible to pay Off. You and your family are in continual financial
bondage to the international bankers. They love it so!
511
Black's Law Dictionary 1990, defines "Money Changers" as: .....business of a banker... today
handled by the international departments of banks." Let me think for a moment, what did Christ
do to the Money Changers." Oh, Yes, he severely interfered with their activity. Three days later
he was crucified. Lincoln was killed for interfering with the money changers. Kennedy was
slaughtered for interfering with the money changers.
Let's return to the subject of your property, and the tax sale for not paying property taxes. In this
situation under a standard deed (not common law deed) you are actually in default. Not because
you understand the default or you like being in default, you just are in default of the tax
payment. So they put your property up for sale. At the tax sale, Joe Doe, average American, bids
on your property and gets it. Now, there is a procedure he must go through step by step to
establish. He is required to give you another chance. You have six months and a day to pay off the
default. If, at this time, you pay off the amount the county says you owe, plus penalties, interest,
fines, etc., then your property is taken off default status and it is yours to continue to pay taxes on
the next year.
THE COVER-UP
There was a deal struck that, if any person who doesn't have a lawyer to bring a case before the
courts, and this person proves the fraud, and speaks the truth about the fraud, the courts are
compelled to not allow the case to be cited or published anywhere. The courts cannot afford to
have the case freely available in the public archives. This would be evidence of the fraud. That is
why you can't hire an attorney. An attorney is compelled to uphold the fraud.
"TRUST ME"
"I'm Here To Help You."
"I Have The Governments Permission To Practice Law."
"I'm A Member of the Bar."
The attorney is there for one reason. That reason is to make sure the bankruptcy scam
(established by the corporate public policy of the corporate Federal Government) is upheld. The
lawyer's will cite no cases for you that will go against the bankruptcy in corporate public policy.
Whatever the lawyers do for you is a bunch of Bull Shit. The lawyers have to support the
bankruptcy and public policy even at your expense. The lawyers can't go against the corporate
Federal Government statutes implementing, protecting and administrating the bankruptcy.
For all cases cited, those in the US Code or the state annotated code or any other source, you may
be sure that they are only those selected cases that support the public policy of bankruptcy. The
legal system has to work that way. After the last 30-40-50-60 years of cases after cases having
been decided based upon upholding the bankruptcy, how could the legal system possibly allow
someone to come into court and put in the record substantial information and argument to prove
the fraud?
BLOOD IN THE STREETS?
Can you imagine how damaging it would be, if they allowed your case to be cited in another case,
or if they allowed the public to examine a copy of your brief that exposes evidence of the fraud?
512
This exposure would render null and void everything for which they have worked so hard.
Wouldn't this exposure make the people mad? Wouldn't this exposure mean there would be blood
running in the streets? Especially the cities where the poor people have been really taken by this
diabolical system. What they are concerned about is that the case never be cited. That goes
against the bankruptcy for fear of exposing the bankruptcy and the people will then pick up their
guns and shoot the SOB's.
ATTENTION: LAW STUDENT!
You said you wanted to be a lawyer. Well, I hope you've read this carefully, because here is the
legal system you're headed to serve, and serve you will. You say you wanted to be a lawyer so you
can find out what oath they're taking, in "secret", behind closed doors in solemn preparation for
the "business of the court" as judges and lawyers.
Now you know the oath. The oath is simply to uphold the bankruptcy. If you want to be a lawyer
and want to make a living as a lawyer, be careful. They will weed you out at the beginning if you
don't bring in your paperwork under the bankruptcy procedures. If you try to defend your
clients and try to help your clients they will get rid of you. They will pull your license. So you
spent all that money and time going to school under the guise of helping people and you're
wasting your time. Without a license you can't go into a courtroom. I would think about this if I
were you.
THE LAWYERS GUILD CONNECTION
Here is what happens. The American Bar Association is a franchise of the Lawyers Guild of Great
Britain. The American Bar Association is not connected primarily with what happens in any case
on the local level. However, when a case leaves the local level, by that is meant, the state court,
city court or the justice of the peace, or even the federal court; and goes to the appeal's court, it
would appear that the American Bar Association takes notice of the case. It would seem that the
American Bar Association must have an agreement that any action brought on appeal, must be
reviewed by the American Bar Association. If this is true, it would make sense. How else would
the American Bar Association, a branch of the Lawyers Guild of Great Britain, which is the legal
arm of the Rothschild's Dynasty, be able to monitor and administer the corporate bankruptcy. It
would appear that the American Bar Association would be compelled to review all appeal cases
and to make certain any case brought under common law or the constitutional law that would
expose the bankruptcy, would be immediately stamped on the back that "this case is not to be
cited or published." I believe that this is the stamp origin and purpose of the stamp message in
such cases. The justice department may be able to do that in Washington D.C.. I can't see where
any judge or lawyer could have the authority to stamp or label the case as one not to be cited for
future cases. I think that is an official stamp from the American Bar Association.
THE BANKRUPTCY ACCOUNTING SYSTEM
Now, Mr/Ms. Law Student, if you're still attending classes and you have a good professor, ask
him/her about just where the stamp comes from that you've seen on many cases. Just who put it
on the paperwork and just who authorized the citation restriction. Just who is tampering with
the law. There is one thing certain the creditor and or his agents are watching these cases very
513
carefully. The creditor and his agents must balance their books. When you think of the IRS, be
aware that the IRS is an agent of the creditor, the corporate International Bankers. This is just
one of the Bankers' state side agencies. The General Accounting Office (GAO) is another agency
they use for this country.
This is where all the accounting goes on to keep track of the debt. All the states have to send
reports to Washington D.C. Washington D.C. has to send reports to the (GAO). Take a look at
your state Comptroller's Annual Report to the Governor of your state. I found it in the library
located in the city of the corporate state capital. Look under "Trust Fund" for each state subcorporation
like the state courts, IRS, Banks, Education, etc. you will be amazed at the amount of
money being pumped into the Trust Fund from the various Corporate State Departmental
Revenues (all revenue is referred to as taxes: fines, fees, licenses, etc.). There are millions and
billions of your hard earned worthless federal reserve notes, "dollars", being held in "trust."This
money is being siphoned off into the coffers of the International Bankers while the corporate
government officials are hounding you for more and more tax dollars.
All this accounting system is NOT so the people will know what is going on. The accounting
reports are for the bankers and creditors to keep tabs on just where their collections are coming
from. The bankers want to know if the bankruptcy debt payments are coming in and just how
much and from what sources. This accounting is the purpose behind M1, M2, M3, M4. and M5.
All this accounting is closely monitored. Maybe every day, but at least once a week. These M's are
the reports of the amounts of money in circulation. The amount of debt out there, and the
amount of credit out there. The floating of debt in the form of bonds. There are five different
categories. This system had to come into existence in order for the creditors to be on top of the
bankruptcy at all times. This system allows the creditors to figure out and know exactly what is
going on in their domain.
It all makes sense. Don't the bankers hire bill collectors? Creditors hire bill collectors to snoop
around do see why you're not paying. They want do know how much you are going to pay so they
can figure out how much will be coming in. How much they will collect. They want to know who
will pay and who won't.
THE WHOLE SYSTEM IS NOTHING BUT CREDIT AND DEBT.
THE WORLD CREDIT UNION
Here is what is going to very quickly happen internationally. All of the governments around the
world are going to unite. They will create one big giant credit union for collecting the debt for the
International Bankers. We have allowed ourselves do get into this very sad situation, but THAT
IS THE WAY IT IS.
The End
514.