George Mercier's Invisible Contracts
|
I N V I S I B L E C O N T R A C T S "National banks are instrumentalities
of the Federal Government, created for a public purpose, and as such
necessarily subject to the paramount authority of the United States." [170] [170]============================================================= DAVIS
VS. ELMIRA SAVINGS, 161 U.S. 275, at 283 (1896). The
factual setting giving rise to DAVIS was a Bankruptcy proceeding. In the many quotations from the United
States Supreme Court and other judicial forums in this Letter, sentences were
rearranged and then quoted out of original order for enhanced logical
continuity; and in other places I made nominal punctuation and capitalization
changes. Therefore, please refer to the
original citations before requoting. =============================================================[170] This
Instrumentality Doctrine is very significant, and the word INSTRUMENTALITY
means an Equity Relationship that is quite strong in American
Jurisprudence. As nationally chartered
banks are the Instrumentality of the Congress, consider the subordinate Party
(the banks) as being the "right hand" of the Master (the
Congress). This is a very powerful
Doctrine indeed, and it needs to be understood for what it really means. In the Armen Condo Letter, I mentioned that,
from a Judicial Perspective, any profit or gain experienced from a bank carries
with it the same identical full force and effect as if the King himself created
the gain. Consider, for a moment, the
application of the Instrumentality Rule to corporations: "Under this Rule, corporate existence
will be disregarded where a corporate subsidiary is so organized and controlled
and its affairs so conducted as to make it only an adjunct and instrumentality
of another parent corporation."
[171] [171]=================raph
Numbers _o [1][1]` ` [1]
k[1]
I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical[1]
(c),
& U.S. v. Tweel ( attached ) Demand
all records within their "control"
which classify you as a 7343 or a 26 CFR 1.11(c) "person" within
30 calendar days, cite "Tweel." form
number. Suggest write to issuing IRC
office and ask what kind of tax
is a "1040" tax. I am unable
to find that section in the IRC. Again cite "Tweel" and demand a
response within 30 calendar days.
Did this month ago response in 2 weeks, "mistake" cited section
6652(a) referring to two other sections " failure to file forms
for payment of dividends or patronage dividends for under $10.00" Agent said was going to refile liens. Waiting for him to do
this. Get certified copies of the recorded liens. Look at Penal Code
felony." file complaint with D.A. A.G. or Feds.
whatever it takes.
"Notice
of Levy" only means that your property is deemed available to
satisfy a tax "assessed."
Does not mean they can take it until they
seize. Altogether different procedure
and only certain property
is subject to seizure; like stuff you make or transport alcohol,
tobacco or firearms with. Will send later. an
income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen
or resident of the United States and, to the extent
provided by section 871(b) or 877(b) on the income of a
nonresident alien individual.8"
wherever
resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable
to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income
is received from sources within or without the United
States.8" naturalized
in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction
is a citizen.8" officer
or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee
of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or
member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which
the violation occurs.8" 2557(b)(8),
2707(d), 3228(in part), 3710(c), 3793(b)(2), 1939
Code.8" business
entities and their employees ignores the word "includes"
in the statute delineating the class of persons liable. He asserts that the sixteenth amendment only allows
taxing income from "sources" (entities and monopolies
created by law), not persons. The
sixteenth amendment
authorization, however, is for a tax on income from
whatever source derived.8" legal
or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered
would be intentionally misleading.8" Yes,
the Law operates out in the practical setting, and not on paper, and you
Highway Contract Protestors are really missing the boat. [294] [294]============================================================= "The
law necessarily steps in to explain, and construe the stipulations of parties,
but never to supersede, or vary them. A
great mass of human transactions depends upon implied contracts, upon
contracts, not written, which grow out of the acts of the parties." - Joseph
Story in III COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION, at 249 ["Contracts"]
(Cambridge, 1833). =============================================================[294] So, do
we really need a written contract on someone in order to bring them to their
knees? The answer is, no: No written contract is required by any one
in order to work someone else into an immoral position on the default of non-payment
of money or some other technical contract requirement, just like Pan Am did to
us in the oral jet lease example, and just like the roofing contractor did to
the homeowner. No written statement of
the contract is now necessary in the United States, or ever was necessary,
going clear back in chronology to the Garden of Eden. [295] [295]============================================================= I could
have gone back in Time even further, but where does someone draw the line? With Heavenly Father and his Law there is no
line to be drawn, since there is no identifiable point of chronological
beginning. =============================================================[295] However,
in order to perfect judicial contract enforcement, it is required that you
adduce evidence that a benefit was accepted by the other party against whom you
are moving, and additionally, that the other party wanted to experience the
benefit that you offered to them conditionally. This is a key Equity Jurisdiction Principle to understand in
defining a relationship with your regional Prince; because the Prince does not
need any individually negotiated, custom written contract from anyone in order
to rightfully and properly extract money out of them in a civil extraction
proceeding, or otherwise assert a Regulatory Jurisdiction against them out o those
highways; Like the Prince, the King also has his written PRIOR NOTICE and
PUBLIC NOTICE statutes to point to, and so all the King now needs to do is to
adduce some evidence that you experienced a benefit the King offered, and it
then becomes unethical for the Federal Magistrate to work an immoral Tort on
the King by restraining the unjust enrichment by the acceptance of the King's
benefits. Do you see what a difficult
position a clever King has worked Judges into -- anyway the Judge rules in your
favor, on the merits of the case, is to defile the Judge. QUESTION:
Did the jet's leasee want to lease the jet and experience a benefit by
using Pam Am's jet? Certainly. The idea of wanting a benefit is an
important one, since if a benefit is forced on a party who objects, the benefit
then becomes a gift and no reciprocating obligation arises to pay for the
benefit, even if the benefit is experienced by the default of the Grantee to
take the benefit back. This BENEFIT ACCEPTANCE
DOCTRINE applies to both tangible as well as intangible benefits. The King's Scribes in the Congress, who
write the King's LEX, addressed this same question by way of an analogy in 1970
with an amendment to the U.S. Postal Statutes regarding the mailing of
unordered merchandise. [296] [296]============================================================= Title
39, Section 3009(a) reads that: "... the mailing of unordered
merchandise... constitutes an unfair trade practice..." Section
3009(c): "Any merchandise mailed in violation of
subsection (a)... may be treated as a gift by the recipient, who shall have the
right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it any manner he sees fit without
any obligation whatsoever to the sender." =============================================================[296] So, in
Equity Relationships where contracts govern, no formal written contract is
necessary to work someone else into an immoral position on their deficiency of
QUID PRO QUO reciprocity through the nonpayment of money to you. And when the King is a party to an unwritten
and invisible contract, otherwise disputed factual setting arguments
surrounding the AMOUNT OF MONEY DUE question are not applicable (when the King
is a party), due to the prior PUBLIC NOTICE effect of his statutes (and therefore
Persons entering into Equity Relationships with the King have already consented
to the AMOUNT OF MONEY DUE terms). If
anyone ever tells you that our King is dim witted or dumb, get rid of such a
person but quick. [297] [297]============================================================= What
the King is taking advantage of here are some fellows called PRESUMPTIONS. These little creatures are known to make
quick appearances at Trials -- when they surface, go to work in someone's favor
on some evidentiary question, and then disappear back into the woodwork again
from which they came. PRESUMPTIONS are
not evidence itself, but these invisible fellows function in a Courtroom in
ways similar to directors and Stage Lights in a drama theater production; by
directing some of the sets and actors to turn this way or that, and by throwing
different colored lights on objects on the Stage. PRESUMPTIONS change the appearance of the evidence Show that is
being presented to the Jury -- and as a result of the different Lighting angles
and color hue techniques, the Jury (the Audience) is lead to make certain
INFERENCES and PRESUMPTIONS regarding the evidence Show that the Jury is
looking at: "Presumptions are deductions or
conclusions which the law requires the jury to make under certain
circumstances, in the absence of evidence in the case which leads the jury to a
different or contrary conclusion. A
presumption continues to exist only so long as it is not overcome or outweighed
by evidence in the case to the contrary; but unless and until so outweighed,
the jury should find in accordance with the presumption." - E.
Devitt et al., in FEDERAL JURY PRACTICE AND INSTRUCTIONS, Section 71.04 (2nd
Edition, 1970). As it
pertains to Government PUBLIC NOTICE statutes, one of these PRESUMPTION fellows
is waiting in the wings, called a NOTICE PRESUMPTION. This fellow is waiting for that day when some statute will be
thrown at you in a prosecution. When
that great day happens, this invisible fellow will suddenly make his appearance
in your prosecution, coloring the evidence adjudged in a light unfavorable to
any LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ON CONTRACT TERMS claims you raise at that time; and then
having done his work, he will go back into the woodwork and disappear. There
is an extensive body of EVIDENTIARY LAW ON PRESUMPTIONS AND INFERENCES written
down waiting for your intellectual absorption; as a point of beginning, to
become acquainted with the MODUS OPERANDI of these slick and invisible
hardworking PRESUMPTION fellows, consider: - Wigmore
on EVIDENCE ["PRESUMPTIONS"] (1981) [a huge 9 volume set]; - J.
Thayer in PRELIMINARY TREATISE ON EVIDENCE AT COMMON LAW (1898); [Wigmore and Thayer are extensively quoted
by state and Federal judges in all American jurisdictions; when the Congress
drafted their new FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE in 1974, the opinions of Wigmore
and Thayer were predominate in quotations cited by commentators. See the 93rd Congress, 2nd Session, HR 5463
(House) and Serial #2 (Senate)]; - C.
McCormick in HANDBOOK ON EVIDENCE (1954 Edition); - McBaine
in PRESUMPTIONS: ARE THEY EVIDENCE?, 26
California Law Review 519 (1938); - David
Louisell in CONSTRUING RULE 301:
INSTRUCTING THE JURY..., 63 Virginia Law Review 28 (1977); - Morgan
and Maguire in LOOKING BACKWARDS AND FORWARDS AT EVIDENCE, 50 Harvard Law
Review 909 (1937); - 34
L Ed 2nd ["PRESUMPTIONS"]; - Morgan
in INSTRUCTING THE JURY ON PRESUMPTIONS AND BURDEN OF PROOF, 47 Harvard Law
Review 59 (1933). The
Second Coming of the Savior spells the end of this world for Gremlins (as this
is THEIR world, in a sense); and like Gremlins, these invisible PRESUMPTION
fellow will be raised and brought forth to make their appearance at the Last
Judgment Day with Father; but unlike Gremlins, these PRESUMPTION fellows won't
need to concern themselves with a double cross by Lucifer: Because PRESUMPTIONS are not up for
judgment. Generally, the interposition
by the invisible PRESUMPTION fellows into our Celestial Contracts are
sophisticated concepts and require a presentation setting in a protracted
background discussion, which is something that lends itself well to another
future Letter. However, for an
introductory glimpse into the world of PRESUMPTIONS and of their origins in the
Heavens, see FRANCIS COFFRIN VS. UNITED STATES [156 U.S. 432 (1894)]; there the
Supreme Court suggested the possibility that the PRESUMPTION of innocence in a
criminal Trial can be found in Deuteronomy [COFFRIN, id., at 454]. When you get through with my impending
discourse on PRESUMPTIONS, you will see that these invisible PRESUMPTION fells
have been around a lot longer than just the BC days of Moses when he wrote
Deuteronomy -- as their origin is long before the Garden of Eden was created,
back before this World was created, back a long time ago, on a planet far away,
when our Heavenly Father, as a man then, went through his Second Estate just
like you and I are going through our Second Estate now. Through contemporary Prophets, it has been
revealed to us what some of the circumstances were that Father when through
back then. ... As for us now, just what
PRESUMPTION fellows will be making their appearance in our favor or against us
at the Last Day depends upon the factual setting we create down here; factors
taken into consideration are whether or not First Estate replacement Covenants
were entered into, and which of those Covenants were then honored in whole or
in part; and what was the extent to which we listened to Lucifer's SUB SILENTIO
imps hacking away at us -- that "... YOU JUST DON'T NEED TO CONCERN
YOURSELF WITH ANY OF THAT CONTRACT JAZZ.
THAT MERCIER -- BAAH!"
Provident to understand for the moment is that when we are UNDER THE
COVENANT, numerous PRESUMPTIONS will be both making an appearance on our behalf
and operating in our favor, at the Last Day. =============================================================[297] So
although written contracts are not that important, of and by themselves, in
terms of attaching and detaching liability, however without written statements
of the contracts being signed by the parties, it is then required that
expensive and protracted trial litigation be conducted just to prove the
content of the contract -- since the other party in default will always just
lie about it and deny liability, and you in turn then have to "over
prove" the other party's lie (called the PREPONDERANCE OF THE
EVIDENCE). You avoid all of that
protracted mess (assuming that you want to win) by simply getting the other
party to make written admissions as to the content of the contract, and then
you can deal with the enforcement of that contract at a later time in
chronologically accelerated Summary Judgment Proceedings (meaning just brief
LAW AND MOTION Hearings). So it is for
the economy of the contract's judicial enforcement that the written statement
of the contract then becomes important:
For economical reasons, by being able to present the Judge with a
non-disputed factual setting through written admissions, and thereby avoid the
cost, expense, and delay of a trial, and of avoiding the financial cost of
calling in witnesses to over prove the position of your adversary, since in
civil grievances, the party possessing the PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE prevails). Mindful
of that government Principle hanging in the background, we will now consider
the following points of attachment of King's Equity Jurisdiction on us all... they
finally gave up and stopped asking for my consent altogether to search the
trunk when I told Mr. Nice Guy that the consent they sought would not be
forthcoming regardless of who they sent over to talk to me. So a MUTT AND JEFF tactic is where the
police will present to someone two opposite and contrasting personality
extremes, in order to trigger the desired admission/confession/consent,
etc. In describing the MUTT AND JEFF
tactic that the police love to use, in the application of its use during
interrogations, the Supreme Court has said that: "... in this technique, two agents
are employed. Mutt, the relentless
investigator, who knows the subject is guilty and is not going to waste any
time. He's sent a dozen men away for
this crime and he's going to send the subject away for the full term. Jeff, on the other hand, is obviously a
kindhearted man. He has a family
himself. He has a brother who was
involved in a little scrape like this.
He disapproves of Mutt and his tactics and will arrange to get him off
the case if the subject will cooperate.
He can't hold Mutt off for very long.
The subject would be wise to make a quick decision. The technique is applied by having both
investigators present while Mutt acts out his role. Jeff may stand by quietly and demur at some of Mutt's
tactics. When Jeff makes his plea for
cooperation, Mutt is not present in the room." - MIRANDA
VS. ARIZONA, 384 U.S. 436, at 452 (1965). =============================================================[280] But it
did not work. The
arrest operation had lasted across several hours; the Sheriff's Department had
called out nine patrol cars and had detoured traffic around the arrest scene
[they just love to put on a big production, after all, this highway is THEIR
kingdom]. They probably resented the
SUB SILENTIO Statement I was making by wearing very expensive business clothes
and carrying a large amount of cash on me, while stingily refusing to spend so
much as $18 to register my car. But I
had a hunch that they resented most of all my cackles and giggling, which I had
a difficult time restraining -- after all, this was a criminal arrest, this was
heinous, I was supposed to "have done something wrong," I was
supposed to have been feeling guilty, I was supposed to have earned a
spanking. [281] [281]============================================================= Research
on the decision making process by police to arrest or not arrest [or in my
case, to intensify or not intensify the arrest scene] typically centers around
the: "... social organization of arrest,
especially how upon situational elements, such as the deference and social
position of the suspect towards police, the preference of the complainant for
arrest, and the social position of the suspect, affect the decision..." - Albert
Reiss in CONSEQUENCE OF COMPLIANCE AND DETERRENCE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR THE
EXERCISE OF POLICE DISCRETION, 47 Law and Contemporary Problems 83, at 86
(Autumn, 1984). In the
old days, the emphasis of the INSPECTORATE had always been preventative in
nature, i.e., that of generating compliance with the Law. The known policy objectives back then were
to protect the public from unscrupulous criminal adventurers, to develop public
trust, and to facilitate the flow of Commercial activities. Unlike today, the INSPECTORATE'S job then
was not that of filling jails (which were then few in number), but of preventing
Tort violation by controlling and ordering relational standards among people. Initially,
the power of police officers to arrest on their own authority was limited to
matters committed in their presence and to the execution of Warrants to
arrest. The reverse has gradually
become to be the case nowadays. With
the emergence and extension of the doctrine of arrest on PROBABLE CAUSE, the
discretionary power of the police was expanded, and so as a result, the apprehension
of criminals came to dominate the organizational police department
mandate. With this objective in view,
now the focus of police practice training shifted to conform to this
exaggerated emphasis on arrest. Even
today, little official attention is given to the following facts: 1. That
the ordinary police officer on patrol infrequently makes an arrest in his daily
duty [A RAND NEW YORK study reported an average arrest productivity of .22
Index crime arrests per man month for uniformed patrol, and .86 Index for
detective's work. See P. Greenwood in
AN ANALYSIS OF THE APPREHENSION ACTIVITIES OF THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE
DEPARTMENT, at 49 (Rand New York Institute, 1970)]; 2. Citizen
reporting, and leads originating from Citizens reporting illicit behavior,
accounts for the large majority of all arrests by patrol officers [A. Reiss in
THE POLICE AND THE PUBLIC, at 84 et seq. (1971]. In
short, the principle business of American policing is now the enforcement of
Criminal Laws by detecting statutory infractions (of which few infractions
actually require the factual presence of damages) and apprehending the
offenders, who are then thrown at the criminal justice machinery for some
indeterminate CRACKING. This
contemporary Criminal Law now treats our Father's old values of peacekeeping
and other order-maintenance functions as unimportant residual matters [a
quiescent state of affairs a typical American police commander would probably
snort at today as being patently unfeasible].
See generally, W. Spelman & D. Brown in CALLING THE POLICE: CITIZEN REPORTING OF SERIOUS CRIME (Police
Executive Research Forum, 1981). =============================================================[281] I was
in the patrol car facing West, so the large evening sun was setting over the
roof of my car parked in front of us, and just like in some Hollywood CLICHE
scenario, the Sheriff's Deputies had a small army of scavenger like silhouettes
working my car over, taking whatever they could find in it, tossing it out on
the road, and uttering salty frustrations at their legal disability to search
my trunk without my consent. [282] [282]============================================================= Uttering
salty frustrations is something that the police are very well acquainted with,
as their progenitors in ancient Rome also got their cookies turned over by
ventilating the unsavory expressions of the vilest slang then floating around
Rome: "In the reign of Augustus, when Rome
had a population of nearly a million, there was a police force of seven
thousand men, with a commissioner, inspectors, captains, and lieutenants. Their twenty-one station houses were
carefully distributed over the whole area of Rome. One of these old time stations was exhumed in 1868, and the
remains of it show that the Roman police were well-housed and cared for. They had a fine building of marble and
brick, with baths, a gymnasium, and a lounging-place for "reserves"
who were not actually on patrol duty. "A peculiar interest attaches to this
station house, because on its walls there still remain the jests and comments
which the policemen scratched there when off duty. Many of the inscriptions seem very modern, for they are sometimes
criticisms of those who were 'high up' -- sometimes even of the Emperor -- and
they are often couched in slang, or in language that is viler still." - Richard
Kemp in MUNSEY'S MAGAZINE, at page 441 ["The Evolution of the Police"]
(July, 1910). =============================================================[282] After
having decided that they were not going to find anything in the car to justify
throwing another slice of LEX at me, they had one last item of business to
attend to -- they wanted to make sure that I understood that this Government
Highway was THEIR kingdom, and so they were determined to wipe that sneaky grin
off my face. [283] [283]============================================================= This
time, the Sheriff's bouncers were passively respectful of the Law, although
they are not always so. The study of
naked law breaking by the police is an art in itself; for an analysis of their
sneaky circumvention of the EXCLUSIONARY RULE, see J. Skolnick in JUSTICE
WITHOUT TRIAL: LAW ENFORCEMENT IN
DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY (1960) and Stinchocombe in INSTITUTIONS OF PRIVACY IN THE
DETERMINATION OF POLICE ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE, 69 American Justice Society
150 (1963). For their circumvention of
suspect interrogation rules, see Reiss & Black in INTERROGATION AND THE
CRIMINAL PROCESS, 347 Annals 47 (1967).
For an examination of the illegal use of police force in general, see
Reiss in POLICE BRUTALITY -- ANSWERS TO KEY QUESTIONS, 5 Transaction 2, at 10
to 19 (July/August, 1968). The general
conclusion they reach collectively through their protracted intellectualizing
is an obvious one: That the police are
motivated in part by stimulation originating from the suspect, which
stimulation can be either negative or positive in nature; and they are also
motivated in part by the specificity and intensity of instructions to CRACK, by
departmental management. =============================================================[283] So they
decided to make their closing Statement for the evening by dragging me in front
of a judge, and then throwing a Criminal Arraignment at me. At the
Arraignment, I interrupted the Judge as he was reciting the charges to ask a
very simple question: Is this a COURT
OF RECORD? In
response, the Judge threw an invective back at me that did not answer the
question asked; rather his little deflectional snort was to state that he was
just not a very good Judge to put such a question to. My response was to state that I was not a very good individual to
throw a Prosecution at -- and with that, the Judge's face distorted into a
dozen different directions; I had his giblets into a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
cracker for conducting an Arraignment without a transcript being made. The furious Judge now had an Adversary who
apparently knew just enough to make him dangerous, so the Arraignment was moved
into another room and started over again. I was up
against some two years incarceration, but that really did not concern me. In the following weeks, after starting to
hear some of my arguments in pre-Trial hearings, circumstances came to pass
(after I was threatened with a 30-day commitment at the State Hospital for a
Psychiatric Examination because I had continuously refused to hire a lawyer),
[284] [284]============================================================= Criminal
Magistrates want very much for you to have Counsel, as the mere lack of Counsel
bars them incarcerating accused Persons.
Frequently, I will refer to Magistrates ruling over chronologically
compressed criminal ceremonies as STAR CHAMBERS; this characterization I merely
borrowed from the Supreme Court, as they annulled a criminal conviction where
Counsel was forced on an unwilling Defendant: "The Sixth Amendment, when naturally
read, thus implies a right of self-representation. This reading is reinforced by the Amendment's roots in English
legal history. "In the long history of British
criminal jurisprudence, there was only one tribunal that ever adopted a
practice of forcing counsel upon an unwilling defendant in a criminal
proceeding. The tribunal was the Star
Chamber. That curious institution,
which flourished in the late 16th and early 17th Centuries, was of mixed
executive and judicial character, and characteristically departed from common
law traditions. For these reasons, and
because it specialized in trying "political" offenses, the Star
Chamber has for centuries symbolized disregard for basic individual
rights. The Star Chamber Court not
merely allowed but required defendants to have counsel. The defendant's answer to an Indictment was
not accepted unless it was signed by counsel.
When counsel refused to sign the answer, for whatever reason, the
defendant was considered to have confessed." - FARETTA
VS. CALIFORNIA, 422 U.S. 806, at 821 (1975). Yet,
there are writers that try and create the image that the King's STAR CHAMBER,
along with its torture and dismemberment on political dissidents, really wasn't
all that bad [see STAR CHAMBER MYTHOLOGY by Thomas Barnes in 5 American Journal
of Legal History, at 1 (January, 1961)]; a stratagem of INTELLECTUAL
CONTAINMENT by rewriting history that Gremlins are well acquainted with in
other textual settings. =============================================================[284] where I
was alone with the part-time state judge in his law office [I went to his law
offices to serve him with an Emergency Appeal Notice, but the judge invited me
into his own office for a chat, and so I had it out with the judge, right then
and there]. I did not know it then, but
the judge did not want the Emergency Appeal being heard before appellate
judges. The meeting lasted for several
hours, and the judge explained to me in a round about and vague way how I was
wrong on the merits of the large volume of Tort Law arguments that I had thrown
at him. He talked to me evasively about
the duties of Citizenship (which is a Contract Law relationship), and how
Licenses revoked by the state are in a special status where Contract Law still
applies, although he did not specifically explain to me just why this is so;
which means that I asked the Administrative Law Judge the wrong questions. [285] [285]============================================================= Asking
the right question is a real art in itself, and very serious art at that: It is literally a matter of life and death,
not just in this World, but even more so in the impending Third Estate as
well. In 1949, the Supreme Court was
asked a question: Did the refusal of
the Trial Judge presiding over a murder conviction violate DUE PROCESS when the
Judge relied on information at the Sentencing Hearing (after the Defendant was
convicted by the Jury), whom the Defendant could neither confront nor
cross-examine. The Supreme Court ruled
that the 5th Amendment's DUE PROCESS CLAUSE applied to criminal prosecutions up
until the time of conviction; therefore, sentence of death affirmed -- go get
executed. [See WILLIAMS VS. NEW YORK,
337 U.S. 241 (1949) (After a Jury convicts, the Judge is free to impose any
Sentence within statutory guidelines, and the Judge is free to draw upon any
information he feels like to make his decisions, such as previous convictions,
etc.)]. For asking the wrong question,
Williams got the electric chair. ... In
1976, the Supreme Court was asked the question whether the mandatory death
sentence imposed by the North Carolina legislature violated the Eighth
Amendment's prohibition against CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT, the answer came
back: Yes, it did. For asking the right question, sentence of
death reversed; no execution here. [See
WOODSON VS. NORTH CAROLINA, 428 U.S. 280 (1978)]. =============================================================[285] When I
probed deeper to extract detailed information as to whether it was the revoked
nature of the old Driver's License that continued to attach a regulatory
jurisdiction, he said loosely that my revoked License status was not relevant
in holding me to those Motor Vehicle statutes, and that I could be held to
those statutes even if I had never applied for a License. And so, even though I knew that he was
withholding from me some Law that I wanted to know, I quickly reasoned that I
was wrong not just for one reason, but for several substantive reasons, so I
capitulated immediately, and the judge offered to give me a qualified
dismissal, his head hanging down looking at the floor, probably finding his
protracted conversation with some occasional sharp technical exchanges on the
Law, particularly in the Counsel area, to have been simply incredible. And the prosecution so ended, quickly and
unexpectedly. Suddenly, my RIGHT TO
TRAVEL Case, that I thought I would be arguing on appeal, just fell apart and
collapsed right in front of me; my Case that I had spent so long in preparation
and in building up an air-tight defense line just vanished from underneath me;
all of the incredible amount of time that I had spent researching and writing
my large volume of justifying defense arguments, of digging out large volumes
of Highway Cases from the 1800's, and all of my meticulous records preservation
of an arrest scene factual setting where rights were demanded... all of that
went out the window for a reason that I never originally contemplated, a reason
that I never thought of, and a reason that I never even considered as probable
as I was writing those copious Tort Law arguments: An invisible contract I had no knowledge of, that suddenly made
an unexpected appearance. Yes, an
unknown and invisible Highway Contract was actually in effect when I was
driving around without a License in effect; a contract was in effect that my
legal Patriot mentors had specifically and adamantly told me did not exist
(since I was not using the Highways for a Commercial purpose and my Driver's
License did not exist). But the Patriot
advisors were point-blank wrong, and the contract did exist, as I will explain
later; and the contract was invisible, and I have no recourse at all to my
legal Protesting mentors who led me to the false conclusions that they
did. And now I know, in a very real
way, what a Witch or Bolshevik Gremlin will be feeling like at the Last Day
before Father; having spent so much time and careful preparation in developing
a line of defense to win a known impending Judgment, but it was all for naught
as one tiny little invisible contract I had no knowledge of nullified my entire
array of Tort Law arguments, up and down the line. I have some compassionate remorse for those poor Gremlins, as I
know what they are going to be up against at the Last Day, and it isn't very
pleasant. And just as I have no
recourse to the Patriot clowns I listened to who exaggerated the legal
significance of the Driver's License as being "the contract", so too
will the world's Gremlins have absolutely no recourse to seek a redress from
their mentor, Lucifer, who is now also leading them astray for the identical
same reason: Important factual
knowledge is being withheld from the Gremlins on the existence of an invisible
Contract in effect with Father from the First Estate, which nullifies their
Tort defense arguments and damages vitiation justifications. After I subtracted out my Tort Law related
arguments that the invisible Highway use contract nullified, only a handful of
procedural errors still remained (at that pre-Trial stage); I also had an
interesting administrative estoppel, and also a strong automatic conviction
reversal on the Counsel issue, but none of these were ON POINT to the RIGHT TO
TRAVEL question itself that I had been juiced up to argue on Appeal. Unlike
Tax Protestors, I have no interest in trying to argue Rights and numerous
procedural deficiencies, while coming up to the appellate courts on the left
side of the factual issue: Because the
most important element of your defense is the factual setting, and that instant
factual setting favored the Prince, as viewed from a judicial perspective: Multiple invisible contracts were in effect
that I had no knowledge of. As I will
explain later, when I used that Government Highway, I had accepted a special
benefit that the New York Prince had conditionally offered to me -- offered
with expectations of reciprocity being held by the benefit's donor, and so now
an invisible contract was actually in effect.
Unlike Tax Protestors, I am in a teachable state of mind, and so when a
judge is trying to explain serious and fundamental error to me (as
distinguished from mere philosophical disagreement with my defiance), I listen. There
is wisdom in selective capitulation.
For example, like being in a jail processing center and having 6 jail
guards on you with choke holds to drag your fingerprints out of you through
your blood, there are some circumstances where your failure to capitulate is to
be discouraged. And that Tax Protestor
from California I mentioned earlier, being up to his neck in contracts with the
King, should have capitulated for his own good; his defense was lousy and his
"Recessions" were never filed timely, and so he should have
capitulated for that reason alone.
Criminal prosecutions are adversary proceedings, and even if yo are
correct, your failure to explain why to the Court is necessarily fatal, when
certain invisible juristic contracts the Judge has already taken IN CAMERA
Judicial Notice of, are PRIMA FACIE Evidence of your taxation liability. Yet, there is a tremendous amount of value
to be gained by being "Hardened" experientially, and our willingness
to get our feet wet and be prosecuted even though we may be technically wrong
for different reasons, will later prove to be to our advantage; as the
Bolshevized threats of future Kings to pay or else be incarcerated, while
shocking everyone else into submission, will fall on our death ears. For
people like Armen Condo and Irwin Schiff, who have such strong political
feelings against the King, this internal bias of their's is obscuring their own
practical judgment. So correctly
understood, addressing this Armen Condo/Irwin Schiff manifestation of sloughing
off responsibility for their acts and relative state of factual knowledge onto
third parties "... it's the King who's wrong, not me," more important
than the problem of exercising judgment on a limited slice of the available
facts, is the problem of they're not being in a teachable state of mind. When I sent Armen Condo that Letter, his
reaction was to quickly toss it aside in the context of oral derogatory
characterizations. Someone else found
it and pulled out of it things Armen Condo saw, but never read. So the distinction between Armen Condo and
the other fellow was that one was in a teachable state of mind, and Armen Condo
wasn't. As a Judge, I could overlook
ignorance when the now enlightened Defendants wants to remedy his prior misdeeds
(negating the CORPUS DELICTI question of damages), but a non-teachable PERSON
gets committed to a cage: His own worst
enemy isn't the King, it's himself.
[286] [286]============================================================= You and
I, Mr. May, have an interest in being concerned about this since the sentencing
of Irwin Schiff earlier this month in Hartford, Connecticut, to 3 years
incarceration based on technical violations of his bank account contracts he
adamantly refuses to get rid of, gives outsiders very strong impressions that
this Movement is either illegal or unfeasible, and probably both. [In December of 1982, the IRS seized a
large amount of money out of Irwin Schiff's bank accounts. Mr. Schiff then discussed his seizure and
its secondary ramifications in a monthly publication he was editing at the
time, called THE SCHIFF REPORT.] As for
the public, the general attitude of outsiders is that if the kingpin of tax
resistance research, Irwin Schiff himself, is unable to keep himself out of the
King's Dungeon, then there just must not be too much substance to our
philosophical position. It has
always been difficult for folks on the outside to relate well to others who
were being criminally prosecuted for political reasons. Last month, Irwin Schiff was being
prosecuted under an infracted contract; Irwin Schiff had been selected for
prosecution by reason of his high political profile. The significance of Mr. Schiff's taxation contract with the King
that was presented to the Federal Judge was an elusive item for Irwin Schiff to
come to grips with, as he dismissed for naught the advisories to GET RID OF
THOSE CONTRACTS, that were given to him by sympathizers I know of. The significance of those contracts was
invisible to him. Like Tax Protestors,
Latter-day Saints have had a long and unpleasant background in being prosecuted
by Governments as well. When Brigham
Young left Nauvoo, Illinois in 1846 to escape incredible persecution, and
started the long march out to the Salt Lake City Valley, they actually fled the
United States, as Utah was the Territory of Mexico at that time. Those folks who are indifferent to the easy
use of Juristic Institutions as instruments of harassment and persecution,
typically speak unfavorable comments about those who sympathize with the
persecuted: "What this deluded people may do with
their prophet, priest, and king, an unwilling prisoner in the hands of the law,
no man can foretell. I only witness and
record such bitter hatred of their rulers, such fierce invectives against the
Government under which they live, and such muttered threats of coming
retribution against whom they deem their oppressors as I have never witnessed
before." - A
writer for the NEW YORK TIMES ["Brigham Young in Court"], page 1
(January 14, 1872). Many
folks snickered at Irwin Schiff for this tax protesting while reading about him
in the papers [as technically incorrect as his protesting was], but like
Brigham Young, Irwin Schiff will one day OPEN HIS EYES and look back on his
commitment to a Federal cage under an infracted contract for that it really
was, and be ever grateful that the seriousness of invisible contracts was
driven into him, as he goes forth to inherit and preside over WORLDS WITHOUT
END, leaving those who vindictively snickered to fall behind as they continue
on with their attractive behavioral justifications sounding in Tort. Irwin Schiff is a great man in many ways,
and those who are great have much to do, so some dimension of error will always
surface here and there for others to find fault with: "He that has much to do will do some
things wrong, and of that wrong must suffer the consequences; and if it were
possible that he should always act rightly, yet when such numbers are to judge
his conduct, the bad will censure and obstruct him by malevolence, and the good
sometimes by mistake." - Samuel
Johnson, as quoted by the editors of the NEW YORK CITY DIRECTORY, inside front
cover [John Trow Publisher, New York (May 1, 1864) {New York Historical
Society, LIBRARY, New York City}. =============================================================[286] It is
very much highly moral and proper for the Judiciary of the United States to
forcibly extract a 1040 out of Taxpayers:
Because the mandatory disclosure of information in a 1040 is identical
to the disclosure of information that is routinely extracted out of adversaries
in civil litigation (called "Discovery"); [287] [287]============================================================= In a
really pathetic status Case where manifold contracts governed, the Supreme
Court ruled that the Congress has the Common Law right, in an income tax
collection setting, to force Citizens to produce testimonial and other
evidentiary goodies against their will and over their objection, even though no
explicit Congressional statutes specifically authorized the evidentiary
grab. See UNITED STATES VS. HARVEY EUGE
[444 U.S. 707 (1980)]. Mr. Euge was up
to his neck in Citizenship and multiple Commercial contracting instruments like
bank accounts, which to him were invisible since he did not understand their
significance in the impending judgment setting; and so like a Gremlin at the
Last Judgment Day before Father, Harvey Euge turned to the Judiciary appealing
for rights, justice, and fairness -- only to find his arguments falling on
death ears. Harvey Euge I feel sorry
for, but I resent his lawyers who took his money and did not enlighten Harvey
on his error. =============================================================[287] and in
a King's Commerce setting, where the Taxpayer experienced financial enrichment
and Federal Benefits in the context of reciprocity being expected, the Taxpayer
and the King are in a Contractual relationship where Tort Law Principles of
fairness and privacy are not even relevant. One of
the reasons why the circumstances surrounding the initial execution of a
contract, the contract's existential RAISON D'ETRE, of any contract in Commerce
is important is because the judicial enforceability of the contract drops a
notch or two into another Status altogether if the deficiency element of either
party never having experienced any benefit from that contract surfaces during a
grievance as an attack strategy. This
requirement of experiencing a benefit is very important in American
jurisprudence, and properly so, since it is immoral and unethical to hold a
contract against a person he received no benefit or gain from. In this case of entering into bank account
contracts, could someone please show me how any person could possibly have a
checking account or a bank loan, or any type of credit or depository
relationship with a bank, and not experience a hard tangible financial
benefit? This places Judges in a
difficult position in that if they simply toss aside and annul contracts
because one of the parties involved doesn't feel like honoring some
uncomfortable terms the contract now calls for, but that same nonchalant party
does not want to give up or return any of the financial benefits they
experienced under the life of the contract, then by examining the prospective
consequences of potential annulment, we find that the Judge is actually in a
difficult moral position for not enforcing the contract: Because the nonchalant party gets away with
the illicit retention of hard financial gain they experienced through the
operation of the contract -- if that prosecution ever gets dismissed. This is
a contributing reason as to why Federal Magistrates come down so hard on, and
so openly, brazenly, and freely snort at "Tax Protestors," so called,
(and with so little concern for their being reversed on appeal), who are
dragged into their Court by the King's Agents on an administrative contract
enforcement action -- WILLFUL FAILURE TO FILE:
Because a Commercial contract was in effect, the Judge knows that the
Defendant has experienced financial gain from that contract, and that now
letting the Defendant out of the contract is immoral. [288] [288]============================================================= Some
folks reading that Armen Condo Letter have been surprised that the Federal
Judge already had a copy of Armen's bank accounts in front of him, while Armen
was throwing his foolish Tort Law arguments, in the form of Constitutional
pronouncements, at the Federal Judge; and in fact the Judge also had Armen's
bank accounts even before the prosecution even started. This should not really have surprised
anyone, since in all criminal prosecutions in the United States, in all
political jurisdictions, both state and Federal, from murder to rape to check
forgery to bombing a Federal building, there is always a preliminary
examination of the evidence the prosecuting attorneys want to use. This examination normally takes place in the
Judge's Chambers (called an IN CAMERA examination), at the time the Judge is
requested to consider signing the Bench Warrant/Arrest Warrant/Criminal
Summons. The examination determines if
there is enough valid evidence to bind the Defendant over for Trial. Quite often there is a second examination
hearing in open court (called a Preliminary Examination even though it is the
second evidentiary examination for the Judge) that is like a mini-Trial,
particularly with felonies, with the Defendant present in open court in
adversary proceedings. For a mentioning
of the practice of the IRS (through the personality of the local United States
Attorney) to adduce evidence of that PERSON'S entry into Interstate Commerce
before the Judge, quietly, EX PARTE, and in an IN CAMERA meeting, in advance of
the issuance of the criminal 7203 Summons, see the unreported Slip Opinion of
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in the UNITED STATES VS. RONALD FOSTER, ET
AL., dated November 29, 1977, page 3.
(Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District
of California, Number 76-3733). And it
is in those quiet Chambers when the Criminal Summons is signed that the most
important "Trial" takes place:
Because it is then that the Judge quietly takes Judicial Notice of the
fact that you are up to your neck in contracts with the King. =============================================================[288] But be
advised that nothing I have said so far relates at all to the liability for the
payment of the Excise Tax on personal incomes (the so-called Income Tax). Even though the Income Tax is an Excise Tax,
it is also a Franchise Tax and several other things. This is why Federal Judges openly snort at folks making a defense
to the Income Tax, so-called, or its administrative mandates in Title 26, based
on deficiencies claimed from its Commercial Excise Tax application
perspective. In Federal Appellate
Circuit Courts, attorneys who argue the "Income Tax is an Excise Tax"
line for the clients are sometimes fined.
What those lawyers do not concern themselves with is that although the
Income Tax has been characterized on occasion by Federal Courts has being an
EXCISE TAX in reported opinions, such a characterization is not exclusive;
additionally, the meaning of just what an EXCISE TAX is has been organically
enlarged over the centuries. Your
arguments, documenting the deficiencies in the Income Tax as an Excise Tax as
applied to your client, are only valid and legitimate, if and only if, your
client has previously cut and terminated all other adhesive attachments of King's
Equity Jurisdiction, of which the Citizenship Contract is an important item, so
that the only remaining disputed area of Equity Jurisdiction left over involves
questions of voluntary entrance into Interstate Commerce, an area of Law very
much appropriate for an Excise Tax.
Then, and only then, do your arguments get addressed by Federal
Magistrates. But such a pure and lily
white person is extremely rare today, and such a pure and clean rescission out
away from King's Equity is a tactically difficult thing to do, even when you
are planning it in advance and are trying to do it. If your client has other attachments of Equity Jurisdiction on
his Person, and you lawyers argue Excise Tax deficiencies on Appeal, then without
even addressing the substance of your Excise Tax deficiencies, your arguments
are patently stupid on their face:
Because you have only told the Federal Court somewhere between 3% to 8%
of what they need to hear. What about
the other 95%? What about the other
attachments of Equity Jurisdiction the King has on your client? What about them? Why are you silent on those attachments? [289] [289]============================================================= Reason: Because your client is up to his neck in
multiple layers of invisible juristic contracts with the King, so
multiplicitous that they are difficult to get rid of. And you are being correctly rebuffed by Federal Magistrates when
they first snort at, and then toss out, your incomplete and deficient
arguments, even though of and by itself, your Excise Tax argument is often
technically accurate [Excise Taxes have organically changed in meaning since
their appearance in the EXCISE TAX CLAUSE of 1787, and arguments centered
around such a 1787 meaning are now incorrect.
It would be provident for a federal appellate forum to momentarily stop
their snortations when dealing with a Tax Protesting action and elucidate well
on the growth in the semantic differential in Excise Taxes, by explaining the
enlargement in meanings from 1787 to the present]. =============================================================[289] Those
rubbery little lawyers, stealing money from their clients in the form of an
advisory fee, are in the same sinking boat that many Patriots are in: They look for deficiencies in the King's
Charter and in his statutory LEX, rather than explaining error to the
clients. But they are out for his
money, and his best interests are the last thing that lawyers concern
themselves with -- but what is really sad is that lawyer's do no even know the
Law they fraudulently purport to be schooled in. [290] [290]============================================================= The
lust for power among contemporary lawyers is impressive; see Doug Brandow in
THROW LAWYERS AT THEM, Conservative Digest, at 46 (January, 1983). "In tribal times, there were the
MEDICINE MEN. In the Middle Ages, there
were PRIESTS. Today there are the
LAWYERS. For every age, a group of
bright boys, learned in their trade and jealous of their learning, who blend
technical competence with plain and fancy hocus-pocus to make themselves
masters of their fellow men. For every
age, a pseudo-intellectual autocracy, guarding the tricks of its trade from the
uninitiated, and running, after its own pattern, the civilization of its
day." - Fred
Rodell in WOE UNTO YOU, LAWYERS, at ix [Reynal & Hitchcock, New York
(1939); the title for this book originates in Luke 11:52] Perhaps
we could speak more kindly of lawyers if we had some good authority to do so,
but even the Supreme Court has taken cognizance of what they pull off: "Due to sloth, inattention, or desire
to seize tactical advantage, lawyers have long engaged in dilatory
practices... The glacial pace of much
litigation breeds frustration with the Federal Courts and ultimately,
disrespect for the law." - ROADWAY
EXPRESS VS. PIPER, 447 U.S. 752, at 757 (1982). =============================================================[290] Patriot
arguments on the Federal Reserve System and its circulating Notes are in a very
similar situation: Because the Congress
has more than just the GOLD AND SILVER COIN CLAUSE of Article I, Section 8 as
its source of jurisdictional authority to create the Federal Reserve, so now
Patriot money arguments that attack only Article I, Sections 8 and 10 are
extremely deficient in substance on their face without any detailed examination
into their merits, and this is true even though your Article I, Section 8
arguments are technically accurate, of and by themselves. So arguing the monetary=======================[197] itself
as we now have it, synchronous with King Richard II's unsuccessful conquest
against France in the 1300's (and long before the King of England's chartering
of the Bank of England in 1694 under Gremlin prompting and intellectual
guidance), [198] [198]============================================================= The
King modeled his bank after the BANK OF AMSTERDAM. Before the Bank of England was established, English mercantile
writers such as Sir Josiah Childe and Thomas Yaranton placed the Crown on
notice that "... the Amsterdam bank was of so immense advantage to
them..." because Dutch Government Debt Instruments "... go in Trade
equal with Ready Money, yea, better in many parts of the World than
Money." [quoted by Dickerson in THE FINANCIAL REVOLUTION IN ENGLAND: A STUDY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC CREDIT,
1688-1756, at page 5 (MacMillian Company, London, 1967)]. The Bank of Amsterdam had begun as a
Warehouse for the safe storage of gold and silver belonging largely to
Merchants. A Merchant would deposit his
precious metal for safekeeping, with a receipt given in return; and the banker
charged a fee for the safekeeping. But
soon a few Merchants wanted the receipts to be divisible, because they wanted
to negotiate just the receipt itself, without having to bother making
arrangements to physically arrange an exchange of the gold or silver. While the Merchants were looking at ways to
save time here and there, the bankers themselves were developing a few ideas of
their own; the bankers noticed that only some small percentage of the gold and
silver actually came and went in and out the doors, so they started to loan out
gold that was not theirs. Now this was
getting interesting -- charging both for the storage and also collecting
interest on the property of others; and its allure attracted the attention of a
Gremlin, Mr. John Law, who used this concept as a basis for developing a
Government monetary theory similar to what Gremlin John Maynard Keynes would be
writing about two centuries later: "This theory [of John Law's] was that
the economic system of that day was being starved because of insufficient
supplies of money. And using the Bank
of Amsterdam as a model, he had a scheme for producing all the money a nation
needed." - John
Flynn in MEN OF WEALTH, at 51 [Simon and Schuster, New York (1941)]. For
nearly two decades, John Law shopped his theories around European Juristic
Institutions, with his plans falling on death ears, but one day a window opened
for his intrigues to be used. After
King Louis the 14th of France had depleted his Treasury funds in 1716, he
turned to John Law who he had previously rebuffed. John Law established the BANQUE GENERALE with himself at the top;
soon it was named the ROYAL BANK with a monopoly charter granted on the
issuance of money -- and John Law issued bales of paper money, and so, not
surprisingly, prosperity was rampant. "It is not to be wondered that for a
few brief months Paris hailed the magician who had produced all these rabbits
from his hat. Crowds followed his
carriage. People struggled to get a
glimpse of him. The nobles of France
hung around his anteroom, begging a word from him." - MEN
OF WEALTH, id., at 75. John
Law followed the Gremlin script for enscrewment right down the line; all gold
and silver was accumulated in the hands of his ROYAL BANK; public ownership of
gold was outlawed; devaluations transpired; inflation mounted and illiquidity
was in the air as debt instruments began to be difficult to service. John Law fled France in 1720, with the mobs
who had once hailed him for being a financial genius now calling for his
head. If this economic scenario sounds
at all familiar to you, it should, because Gremlins find it unnecessary to
change, alter, modify, or rearrange their MODUS OPERANDI with the passage of
time, as they go about their work running one civilization into the ground
after another: "As a NEW DEALER [John Law] was not
greatly different in one respect from the apostles of the mercantilist school
-- the Colberts, the Roosevelts, the Daladiers, the Hitlers and Mussolinis...
who sought to create income and work by state-fostered public works and who
labored to check the flow of gold away from their borders. He introduced something new, however, that
the Hitlers, the Mussolinis, the Roosevelts, the Daladiers and the Chamberlains
have imitated -- the creation of funds for these purposes through the
instrumentalities of the modern bank.
Law is the precursor of the inflationist redeemers." - MEN
OF WEALTH, id. So the
Bank of England was modeled after the Bank of Amsterdam which had been created
early in the 1600's, and the Dutch bank in turn had been modeled after the Bank
of Venice [as reported by Charles Wilson in THE DUTCH REPUBLIC AND THE CIVILIZATION
OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY, at page 25; McGraw Hill, New York (1968)]. The Bank of England became so successful at
selling Government debt instruments that it soon became the prototype for
public banks where looters in other nations sought similar objectives of
grabbing more money for themselves without having to ask their subjects for
it. Under the direction of a series of
astute financial moves, England's new Bank quickly created investor confidence
in Government funded debt instruments, enabling the Crown to borrow large sums
of money at steadily declining rates of interest, rather than go through the
nuisance and irritation of raising taxes dramatically. Writing in THE SPECTATOR, Joseph Addison
once compared Government credit loans to: "... a beautiful Virgin seated upon a
throne of Gold possess'd of the powers of a Croesus to convert whatever she
pleas'd into that precious Metal [CROESUS was a King of Lydia in the 6th
Century, B.C., and possessed vast wealth; hence CROESUS means any fabulously
wealthy man.] - quoted
by Dickerson in THE FINANCIAL REVOLUTION IN ENGLAND: A STUDY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC CREDIT, 1688-1756, inside
the front page [MacMillian Company, London, 1967)]. =============================================================[198] The
special SUB ROSA relationship that was developed between the circulation in
King's Commerce of paper money by the King and a grand Tort the King intends to
work, still remains in full force and effect down to the present day in the
United States. [199] [199]============================================================= "The
history of the law of money evidences a constant struggle between the customs
of trade and the doctrine of freedom of contract, on the one hand, and on the
other, the exercise of the political power for the needs of Government or the
relief of private debtors [meaning banking Gremlins]." - Phanor
J. Eder, writing in "Legal Theories of Money," 20 CORNELL LAW
QUARTERLY 52, at 53 (1934). =============================================================[199] Anglo-Saxon
Kings have a long history of never bothering to stop pulling off whatever they
can get away with. [200] [200]============================================================= There
is some value in turning around and looking back at the past to uncover the
movements of men in other ages, because once their behavior in that setting is
known, then the real meaning of the movements of men today are exposed: "If we consider the shortness of
human life, and our limited knowledge, even of what passes in our own time, we
must be sensible that we should be forever children in understanding, were it
not for this invention, which extends our experience to all past ages, and to
the most distant nations; making them contribute as much to our improvement in
wisdom, as they had actually laid under our observation. A man acquainted with history may, in some
respect, be said to have lived from the beginning of the world, and to have
been making continual additions to his stock of knowledge in every
country." - David
Hume in PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS ["Of the Study of History"], at page 390;
[Longmans Green, London (1898); Greene and Grosse, Editors]. But
Anglo-Saxon Kings are not the only looters to play this game. For a discussion of Monetary Debasement
being pulled off in B.C. times, see the writings of Phanor J. Eder in THE GOLD
CLAUSE CASES IN LIGHT OF HISTORY, 23 Georgetown Law Journal 369, at page 722
(Part II) (1935). =============================================================[200] For
example, in the 1500's, the King of England (actually Queen Elizabeth) ordered
a debasement of Britain's national currency for the express purpose of working
a Tort on rebels in Ireland. This
carefully planned currency debasement was explicitly designed to damage these
Irish adversaries of the Crown as an act of war. When these debased coins were issued out all over England to the
public at large, they became known as MIXED MONEY due to the novel alloy
composition in the coins, meaning a hybrid of part precious and part ordinary
metals. This degenerate mixed money was
then sent by the King of England to Ireland as a covert war military measure
against the rebels there. The rebels
were buying supplies abroad, and they were making their purchases by using
valuable Britannic gold and silver coins, which always had an international
allure to them, and properly so. So the
King decided that the best way to stop the rebels from making their arms
purchases would be by making their money unattractive to their suppliers,
foreign gun runners. In making their
purchases of guns and armaments, the rebels had been obtaining their gold and
silver English Crown coins from loyal British subjects in the course of
ordinary dealings, and those subjects in turn had received it from Queen
Elizabeth's soldiers and others functioning as Crown distribution agents. So the King, knowing what he does about
using both devalued coin and soft paper currency to damage adversaries, simply
reduced the value of the money the rebels were getting, by clever
debasement. Although debasing the
currency to damage a rebel out in some remote place carries the secondary
consequence of damaging loyal subjects who mean the Crown no harm; so as to not
offend the Crown's subjects, the Queen promised to redeem this debased money at
face value later on [sound familiar today?]
[201] [201]============================================================= The
Queen died shortly after making this promise to her subjects, but her successor
honored her commitment. See Simon,
HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF IRISH COINS, at page 38 (1749). =============================================================[201] But as
for the rebels in Ireland, now the debased Crown coins were being rejected by the
foreign gun runners as payment for goods they had been selling to the rebels,
and so, as the supplies to the rebels were cut off at the source in this slick
and clever way, the plans for conquest by the rebels was frustrated. [202] [202]============================================================= For
additional Commentary on the use of debased currency against the Irish rebels,
see generally, John Hannigan, THE MONETARY AND LEGAL TENDER ACTS OF 1933-34 AND
THE LAW, 14 Boston University Law Review 485, at 504 (1934). =============================================================[202] The
English Case of 1604 that I had quoted from above called THE MIXED MONEY CASE
was a challenge to the authority of the King of England to pull off what he did
against Irish rebels, and as you read above in a quotation from the Case, the
Judiciary has declared that it is a Sovereign prerogative of the King to debase
his own currency, whenever and however the King feels like it. [And rather than snicker at Judges today for
tossing aside your challenges to paper money, the correct remedy lies in
writing explicit and blunt restraining language into the King's Charter (the
Constitution), but our Framers in 1787 never did that; and the Framers of 1787
did not write in such explicit and blunt restrainments for a very good reason;
Because there was strong reservations expressed on the floor of the Convention
on whether such proposed restrainments were really provident. [203] [203]============================================================= "Once
the Convention was under way, proposals that the Federal Government be given
the power to coin money and fix its value and that both the Federal and State
Governments be vested with authority to emit bills of credit triggered heated
debate over the appropriate limits of governmental monetary power." - Getman,
THE RIGHT TO USE GOLD CLAUSES IN CONTRACTS, XLII Brooklyn Law Review 479, at
489 (1976). See generally, Max Farrand,
editor, THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787 [Yale University Press
(1937)], 4 volumes. So what
we are left with today is the milktoast of Article I, Section 10. =============================================================[203] That
Mixed Money Case was a sleeper, as our Framers never correctly designed the
Constitution to repel this special type of quiet SUB ROSA political aggression;
and 250 years later, that Mixed Money Case surfaced in the Supreme Court of the
United States, in the context of justifying the Civil War era Legal Tender Acts.
[204] [204]============================================================= THE
LEGAL TENDER CASES, 79 U.S. 457, at 548 (1871). =============================================================[204] Down to
the present day, the excitement of war is used as a justification to either
initiate or continue one more turn in Gremlin enscrewment objectives. [205] [205]============================================================= Professors
Peacock and Wiseman correctly point out that a Government's call for a spirit
of sacrifice leads to the general acceptance of a higher tax rate at the end of
a major war, rather than at the beginning of the war [see A.T. Peacock and J.
Wiseman in THE GROWTH OF PUBLIC EXPENDITURES IN THE UNITED KINGDOM (Princeton
University Press, Princeton, 1961);] but as is the caliber of collegiate
INTELLIGENTSIA, never is there any discussion of the quiet movements of
Gremlins in the shadows directing the administrative operations of their
nominees that they had previously planted and placed in political
jurisdictions; and so as a result, the true illicit nature of the LEX designed
to create Special Interest benefits and damages not related to legitimate
juristic police power operations, remains obscured. The last annulment institution in the United States for illicit
LEX, the Supreme Court, is moving in the right direction generally, but they
still need some fine tuning: "The requirement of a legitimate
public purpose guarantees that the State is exercising its police power, rather
than providing a benefit to special interests." - ENERGY
RESERVES VS. KANSAS POWER, 459 U.S. 400, at 412 (1983). =============================================================[205] So now
we should have some minimum discernment to see why contemporary representations
to the effect that gold is just too unsuitable by its heavy bulk weight to be a
modern circulating denomination of currency, as both fraudulent and factually
defective. Paper money is characterized
by its depreciating nature. [206] [206]============================================================= "But
the history of paper money, without any adequate funds pledged to redeem it,
and resting merely upon the pledge of national faith, has been in all ages and
in all nations the same. It has
constantly become more and more depreciated; and in some instances has ceased
from this cause to have any circulation whatsoever, whether issued by the
irresistible edict of a despot, or the more alluring order of a republican
congress." - Joseph
Story, III COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION, at page 225 ["Prohibitions -
Paper Money"] (Cambridge, 1833). =============================================================[206] Fraudulent
because people with sinister intentions use debased currency (and non-redeemable
Federal Reserve Notes that quietly lose a little decremental value with each
passing year are debased currency) for political conquest and to damage their
adversaries. [207] [207]============================================================= "...
the reader should note especially the 'striking parallels to modern times' [in
comparison to King Solon in 594 B.C., when he pulled off currency debasement
acts by]... military adventures draining treasuries, threats of national
bankruptcy, inflations, massive liquidations of debt, debasement of all
coinage, disputes over sovereign prerogatives concerning money..." - Henry
Holzer, GOVERNMENT'S MONEY MONOPOLY, page 15 [Books in Focus, New York City
(1981)]. =============================================================[207] And
such representations are factually defective because the King's new proposed
money (which the Treasury Department has already quietly circulated prototypes
of) has thin strips of metal imbedded in between layers of paper, and those
strips of metal could just as easily have been alloyed with gold and silver if
our King wanted it -- but no, our King is not quite through with his MAGNUM
Tortfeasance, not just yet. [208] [208]============================================================= Down to
the present day, pleas and petitions for a reinstatement of the Gold Standard,
of just some type, continuously falls on death ears in Congress [maybe because
that is not OUR Congress]. In December
of 1981, the House Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs Committee entertained
such a petition [see GRASSROOTS HEARINGS ON THE ECONOMY, PART III, "Petition
for Hearings on HR 391 -- Rhode Islanders for a Gold Standard," 97th
Congress, First Session, starting at 499 (GPO, 1981)], but the petition was
tossed aside and ignored. =============================================================[208] And
just as Patriots go right ahead and argue defective reasoning based on the
milktoast language in Article I, Section 10, so too do Patriots go right ahead
and try to argue the line, that well, since the United States has no express
grant of jurisdiction to create corporations, therefore, the Federal Reserve
Board is unConstitutional for this reason.
I have concluded that if I were on the Supreme Court, I would uphold the
inherent jurisdiction of the King to organize corporations (or any other
instrumentality that had its own separate treasury, with the King calling that
instrument whatever he feels like).
[209] [209]============================================================= "A
strange fallacy has crept into the reasoning on this subject. It has been supposed, that a corporation is
some great, independent thing; and that the power to erect it is a great,
substantive, independent power; whereas in truth, a corporation is but a legal
capacity, quality, or means to an end; and the power to erect it is, or may be,
an implied and incidental power. A
corporation is never the end, for which other powers are exercised; but a
means, by which other objects are accomplished." - Joseph
Story, in III COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION 131, ["Powers of
Congress"] (Cambridge, 1833). =============================================================[209] That
idea of a separate treasury is important to the Supreme Court, since that is
the determining logic behind their rulings making municipalities exempt from
the 11th Amendment, which otherwise operates to immunize actions against
states. [210] [210]============================================================= LAKE
COUNTY ESTATES, 440 U.S. 391, at 401 (1978). =============================================================[210] My
reasoning comes from a confluence of factors.
First, getting a feel for the lack of specificity in the Framer's
drafting of the Constitution; for example, no where is the King given
permission to hire employees, to excavate sites for office buildings, to sign
leases, or to purchase assets or land in foreign lands, etc. In examining those areas where the Supreme
Court has ruled on inherent meanings of Clauses, they have ruled, for example,
that the "Adversary Nature" of criminal prosecutions is inherent in
the Sixth Amendment [MIRANDA VS. ARIZONA and the counsel cases], and that
Courts created by the United States have inherent Contempt jurisdiction,
regardless of the absence of the conferment of any such jurisdiction. [211] [211]============================================================= IN
RE: RUSSO, 53 Federal Rules Decisions
564 (United States District Court, 1971). =============================================================[211] And on
and on. For these reasons there is very
much a basis for an implied grant of jurisdiction for the King to do something,
not otherwise specifically denominated in his Charter. The test to be applied to see if some
jurisdiction claimed operative by the King, but not exactly specified anywhere
in that Constitutional Charter of his which breathed life into the King his
breath of juristic life, lies in another strata: First, is the challenged LEX even inferentially in conflict with
any restraining mandate the Framers wrote into the Constitution? In the limited question of creating
corporations, the answer is no, it isn't.
Next, we shift into the broader question and ask: Is the creation of corporations even out of
harmony with the LEIT MOTIF of the Constitution to restrain the King from
functioning as a Tortfeasor? [212] [212]============================================================= "The
Bill of Rights is the primary source of expressed information as to what is
meant by Constitutional liberty. Its
safeguards secure the climate which the Law of Freedom needs in order to
exist. It is true that they were added
to the Constitution to operate solely against Federal power [BARRON VS. BALTIMORE,
32 U.S. 243, at 247 (1833)]. But the
Fourteenth Amendment was added in 1868 in response for a demand for national
protection against abuses of State power.
A series of decisions over the last 25 years has held that many rights
were indeed extended against the states by that Amendment. It is indeed fair to say that from 1962 to
1969 the very face of the Law changed.
Those years witnessed the extension to the States of nine of the
specifics of the Bill of Rights, decisions which have profound impact on
American life, requiring the deep involvement of State courts in the
application of Federal Law." - Justice
William Brennan in REMARKS, 36 Rutgers Law Review 725, at 727 (1984). Patriots
and Tax Protestors can carry on all they want with demanding, and believing,
that they posses some Constitutional Rights, and just like Justice Brennan's
REMARKS, there are many high, noble and lofty characterizations of those Rights
available -- but those REMARKS, together with the Tax Protestor's demands, are
all for naught when one tiny little device surfaces in a grievance: A Commercial Contract. By the end of this Letter the elevated
priority in Nature that contracts ascend to in settling grievances should
become apparent, whenever they are in effect; a doctrinal concept if unlearned
now, Mr. May, will be learned in on uncertain terms before Father at the Last
Day. =============================================================[212] Does
the challenged act of Congress (creating corporations or other political
instruments with separate treasuries), have the effect, in the practical
setting, of allowing or in any way assisting the King to function as a
Tortfeasor against us countryside folks?
In other words, does the creation of privately held corporations by the
King, such as the Federal Reserve System, provide the King with a mechanism to
damage us that he would not otherwise be privileged to do, or able to do in the
practical effect with his own direct employees? In the case of creating corporations, or in the creation of
separate juristic organizations with their own treasuries, the administrative
form of the corporation (the wording on the piece of paper that is its charter)
offers no possibility of a Tort on us that could not be otherwise worked by Executive
Agencies operating under direct Presidential administrative jurisdiction. This is true even in the case of the Federal
Reserve System. The Fed is very much a
Tortfeasor in its control over the rate of inflation, [213] [213]============================================================= Inflation
is a Tort, and can be claimed as such in damage awards. See the Supreme Court in JONES &
LAUGHLIN STEEL CORPORATION VS. PFIFER, 462 U.S. 523 (1983). And Inflation is also a tax, and is treated
as income by the Treasury Department; in the ANNUAL REPORT of the Secretary of
the Treasury for 1919, on page 213, there lies the interesting admission that
the large federal deficits of 1917 to 1919, totaling then some $23 billion,
were financed by money creation, and other devices. =============================================================[213] and in
its proclivities to do so; and from its being such a dominate financial market
maker and control of re-discount rates its Open Market Committee can and will
fix rates of interest at whatever level it feels like; and the Gremlins running
the Fed know very much that they posses considerable power to determine
prosperity levels. [214] [214]============================================================= "The
purpose of the Federal Reserve System is to contribute, to the maximum extent
that monetary policy can contribute, to the achievement of sustained high
employment, stable values, and a rising standard of living for all
Americans." - William
McChesney Martin, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, in THE FEDERAL RESERVE
AFTER 50 YEARS ["Hearings before the Subcommittee on Domestic
Finance"], 88th Congress, 2nd Session, Volume I, page 16 [GPO Washington
(January and February, 1964)]. =============================================================[214] By
controlling these financial market forces, the Fed single-handedly controls the
relative level of economic prosperity or decline in the land. [215] [215]============================================================= Economists
watch Fed monetary statistics quite closely, as if they were national policy
tools (which they are). Statistics
generally targeted for close observation are those two monetary velocity
instruments called M-1 and M-2, as they are indications of the direction of the
future percentage advance of the GNP and Inflation. See THE VELOCITY OF MONEY by George Garvey and Martin Blyn,
[Federal Reserve Bank, New York (1969)].
The true point of origin of all directional changes in the economy necessarily
originates with that institution that controls the aggregate issuance of its
circulating instruments; at the present time, this is the Fed and its OPEN
MARKET COMMITTEE, a fact that the Congress collectively is well aware of but
not always acknowledged publicly. See
CONDUCT OF MONETARY POLICY in Hearings before the Committee on Banking, Finance
and Urban Affairs, House of Representatives, 96th Congress, First Session,
Serial Number 96-22 (July, 1979), which discusses the cascading effect of
decisions of the OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE on multiple macroeconomic indicia. =============================================================[215] If the
Fed were an administrative agency under, perhaps, the Comptroller of the
Currency, then all of the regulatory assertions it now makes over member banks
would remain in effect, and it would still control prosperity through its
regulatory mechanisms. (Incidentally,
the mere absence of prosperity, under such highly managed and tightly
controlled monetary circumstances, is a Tort against us by the Fed). [216] [216]============================================================= An
INTELLIGENTSIA clown once hired by Gremlins to do some writing for them wrote a
few words to talk about the Gremlin perception of prosperity: "An economic system does not have to
be expansive -- that is, constantly increasing its production of wealth -- and
it might well be possible for people to be completely happy in a nonexpansive
economic system if they were accustomed to it.
In the twentieth century, however, the people of our culture have been
living under expansive conditions for generations. Their minds are psychologically adjusted to expansion, and they
feel deeply frustrated unless they are better off each year than they were the
previous year. The economic system
itself has become organized for expansion, and if it does not expand it tends
to collapse [and when it does collapse, it is because the Gremlins were
there]." - Carroll
Quigley in TRAGEDY AND HOPE, at 497 [MacMillian Company, New York (1966)]. =============================================================[216] If the
Federal Reserve were an Article II Executive Agency under Presidential
Jurisdiction (which as a privately owned and independently managed business entity,
it is not), then every single decision made by the Federal Reserve Board and
its Open Market Committee (and its predecessor) down to the present time, would
still have been made and carried out.
[217] [217]============================================================= The
Federal Reserve Board is a very handy instrument to massage economies, create
depressions, and run civilizations into the ground with. For example, in the late 1920's, there was
an era of speculation in the securities markets of the United States; after a
while in any market, what appears to be SPECULATION will always surface when
rising prices and highly leveraged loans make their institutionalized
appearance on the scene. Economists, bureaucratic
theorists, and other clowns will cast SPECULATION into an illicit image, but
SPECULATION, so called, is nothing more than a manifestation of strong
prosperity -- and Gremlins do not want you and I to have sustained protracted
prosperity, they want us to experience economic starvation like they wanted
physical starvation for those millions of Ukrainians who were murdered in the
great manufactured Famine of 1932-33.
Easy high percentage loans are an important ingredient to create
SPECULATION, so one of the devices used by Rothschild Gremlins to create a
balloon of American speculation was to lower the rate of interest charged by
the Federal Reserve Board to member banks: "Nothing did more to spur the boom in
stocks than the decision made by the New York Federal Reserve Bank, in the Spring
of 1927, to cut the rediscount rate.
Benjamin Strong, Governor of the bank, was chief advocate of this unwise
measure, which was taken largely at the behest of Montagu Norman of the Bank of
England [Montagu Norman was a Rothschild nominee planted in the Bank of
England]. Ostensibly, this easy money
policy was designed to stop the flow of gold out of England [as usual,
DECEPTION is present when Gremlins are running the show]. Its primary effect, however, was to cause a
reevaluation of all securities [upward], and to further inflate our already
inflationary credit system by making large sums of money available for
financing stock speculation." - Bernard
Baruch,, in his autobiography BARUCH:
THE PUBLIC YEARS, at 221 [Holt Rheinhart & Winston, New York (1960)]. The
well known Gremlin economist John K. Galbraith dismisses the view that the
action of the Federal Reserve Board authorities in cutting the rediscount rate
in the Spring of 1927 had much effect on the elevated speculation which
followed, on the grounds that this: "... explanation obviously assumes
that people will always speculate if they can get the money to finance it. Nothing can be farther from the truth. There were times before and there have been
long periods since when credit was plentiful and cheap -- far cheaper than in
1927 to 1929 -- and when speculation was negligible. Nor, as we shall see later, was speculation out of control after
1927, except that it was beyond the reach of men who did not want in the least
to control it." - John
K. Galbraith in THE GREAT CRASH, page 16 [Houghton Mifflin, Boston (1955)]. SPECULATION
is actually fueled by the ability to easily obtain highly leveraged loans in a
market characterized by rapidly rising prices.
Your analogy of 1927, Mr. Galbraith, to previous eras is defective
because other previous periods of cheap credit was deficient in possessing the
twin important structural SPECULATION requirements of easily obtainable highly
leveraged loans and rapidly rising prices; if both highly leveraged loans and
rapidly rising prices are not present, then cheap credit loans will not induce
SPECULATION. And so the failure of
cheap and plentiful credit loans in previous eras to trigger SPECULATION then,
is not relevant and does not negate the highly stimulating effect that such
inexpensive credit loans created in the American securities markets from 1927
to 1929, since declining rates of interest very much act as an accelerant on
markets already structurally conditioned for SPECULATION by the twin important
indicia of highly leveraged loans and rapidly rising prices. You really are not competent to be an
economist, Mr. Galbraith -- and incidentally, managing SPECULATION, so called,
was very much WITHIN the reach of your brothers who very much wanted to control
it, TOTALLY. Sorry, Mr. Galbraith, but
you don't do a very good job of covering the tracks of your Gremlin brothers
from the First Estate who, like you, are repeating the same judgment mistakes
now that you made then. Having
created something ILLICIT, having created something that just NEEDS and IS
BEGGING for a corrective solution, Gremlins acting through their
instrumentality, the Federal Reserve Board, in 1929 now had just the right
medicine to fix this wicked SPECULATION, as one visible Rothschild nominee, Mr.
Montagu Norman, once again made his descent sortie on Washington in vulture
trajectory, and told Andrew Mellon what to do next: "... the Federal Reserve Board issued
a formal statement today declaring that it conceived it to be its duty in 'the
immediate situation' to restrain the use, either directly or indirectly, of
Federal Reserve credit facilities in aid of the froth of speculative credit... "No information could be obtained
from Mr. Norman or American officials concerning the purpose of his visit [to
Washington] other than he had come here for a general discussion of
international financial conditions with the System and members of the [Federal
Reserve] Board... "All efforts to obtain any further
interpretation of the action of the Federal Reserve Board than that contained
in its formal statement were futile... "The decision by the Federal Reserve
Board to take so definite a stand in connection with its attitude towards
speculative activities, was made, it is understood, only after a conference in
which Secretary Mellon, as Chairman [of the Federal Reserve] EX-OFFICIO
participated [meaning that Gremlin Andrew Mellon DIRECTED, after having
received his instructions from the Rothschilds through Montagu Norman]... "The frankness of its announcement
today therefore added to the interest it caused in financial circles." - THE
NEW YORK TIMES ["Loan Curb Hinted by Federal Reserve Board; States Duty in
'the Immediate Situation' is to restrain Speculative Credit"], page 1
(February 7, 1929). Who is
Montagu Norman? A Gremlin who was
recognized as being very powerful at that time [Carroll Quigley claims the WALL
STREET JOURNAL for November 11, 1927 characterized Montagu Norman as "...
the currency dictator of Europe."]
Like all good hardworking Gremlins putting in their honest days' labor,
they are answerable to another person up the line [even the Rothschilds know
from whence their benefits originate]; and like a few other WORLD CLASS
Gremlins, Montagu Norman held the high honor of running an entire civilization
into the ground: "... Norman held the position [of
CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER] for twenty-four years (1920-1944), during which he
became the chief architect of the liquidation of Britain's global
preeminence." - Carroll
Quigley in TRAGEDY AND HOPE, at 325 [MacMillian Company, New York (1966)]. He had
brilliance, he had genius, he had SAVIOR-FAIRE, and Montagu Norman tied it all
together with slick Gremlin FINESSE when he so smoothly ran Great Britain into
the ground with so very few people even knowing that he had done so; and so
when Montagu Norman brought his conquests to other continents, for and on
behalf of his Rothschild sponsors, he would also be leaving the ruins of those
once majestic civilizations with little indication that he had been there. The
year 1929 started out to be a great year, and American businessmen had positive
expectations [see the many businessmen quoted through the WALL STREET JOURNAL
for January 1, 1929]; but the world's Gremlins had a few ideas of their own: "On February 15, 1929, the Federal
Advisory Council adopted the following resolution: "The Council believes that every
effort should be made to correct the present situation in the speculative
markets before resorting to an advance in rates. "The Council in reviewing present
conditions finds that in spite of the cooperation of member banks, the measures
so far adopted have not been effective in correcting the present situation of
the money market. The Council,
therefore, recommends that the Federal Reserve Board permit the Federal Reserve
banks to raise their rediscount rate immediately and maintain a rate consistent
with the cost of commercial credit." - Transcript
of the minutes of the 3:10pm Meeting of the FEDERAL ADVISORY COUNCIL in the
Federal Reserve Board Room (April 19, 1929) {National Archives ["Federal
Reserve Board File"], Washington, D.C.}.
The Federal Reserve Board's FEDERAL ADVISORY COUNCIL was abolished in
the 1930's. The
FEDERAL ADVISORY COUNCIL had also met twice earlier that day, at 10:05am and at
12:10pm. There had been an ominous
atmosphere of excitement in the air that day: "The prospect of further developments
of importance in regard to the Government's attitude on the credit situation
appeared today when members of the Federal Advisory Council... met in a special
session and later held a joint conference with the Board [the 12:10pm
meeting]. Resolutions were adopted by
the Council and transmitted to the Board, but their purport was closely
guarded. ... An atmosphere of deep
mystery was thrown about the proceedings both by the Board and the
Council. No advance announcement had
been made that an extraordinary session of the Council was contemplated, and in
fact that the members were in the city became known only when newspaper
correspondents happened to see some of them entering the Treasury Department
building. Even after that evasive
replies were given, until it became apparent that such tactics were futile... While the joint meeting was in progress at
the Treasury Department, every effort was made to guard the proceedings and a
group of newspaper correspondents were asked to leave the corridor. The meeting of the Council attracted
particular attention in view of the fact that it had met here in regular session
on February 14th, a week following the Reserve Board's warning statement
against the excessive use of Reserve System credit in speculative operations on
the stock market." - THE
NEW YORK TIMES ["Reserve Council Confers in Haste: Atmosphere of Mystery is Thrown About Its
Meeting in Washington"], page 9 (April 20, 1929). A month
later, one more Gremlin turn of the screws was administered to the economy: "The Federal Advisory Council has
reviewed carefully the credit situation.
It continues to agree with the view of the Federal Reserve Board as
expressed in its statement of February 5, 1929 that 'an excessive amount of the
country's credit has been absorbed in speculative security loans.' The policy pursued by the Federal Reserve
Board has had a beneficial effect due largely to the loyal cooperation of the
banks of the country. The efforts in
this direction should be continued, but the Council notes that while the total
amount of Federal Reserve credit being used has been reduced, 'the amount of the
country's credit absorbed in speculative security loans' has not been
substantially lowered. "Therefore, the Council recommends to
the Federal Reserve Board that the time has come to grant permission to raise
the rediscount rates to six percent to those Federal Reserve Banks requesting
it, thus bringing the rediscount rates into closer relation with generally
prevailing commercial money rates. The
Council believes that improvement in financial conditions and a consequent
reduction of the rate structure will thereby be brought about more quickly,
thus best safeguarding commerce, industry, and agriculture." - Resolution
approved by the FEDERAL ADVISORY COUNCIL, in its 2:30pm Meeting on May 21, 1929
{National Archives ["Federal Reserve Board File"], Washington, D.C.}. While
the Gremlins controlling the Federal Reserve were busy raising interest rates,
the analytical staff of the Federal Reserve was cognizant of the extreme
economic damages such an elevated rate of interest was doing to Commerce,
Industry, and Agriculture [directly contrary to the beneficial effect claimed
by the Federal Advisory Council]: "The higher money rates do not appear
to have restricted short term commercial borrowings, but in a number of ways
the present high level of money rates is beginning to have a detrimental effect
upon business. "1. The
volume of building operations has been declining largely because of difficulty
in obtaining second mortgage money and loans for building operations and also
difficulty in selling real estate bonds.
Stock financing which has been resorted to in some cases has only partly
met the requirements. "2. A
good many state, municipal, railway and other projects, ordinarily financed
through bonds and notes, have been postponed because of difficulty in securing
at reasonable prices... "3. Reduced
foreign financing in the United States... are diminishing the purchasing power
of those countries for our products, a tendency which is likely to be reflected
sooner or later in reduced exports. "It thus seems reasonably certain
that present money conditions, if long continued, will have a seriously
detrimental effect upon business conditions, and the longer they are continued
the more serious will be the effect.
The volume of business now appears to be sustained in part by the
production of automobiles considerably in excess of retail purchases with a
consequent stimulating effect upon the steel industry..." - PRELIMINARY
MEMORANDUM FOR THE OPEN MARKET INVESTMENT COMMITTEE ["Effects on
Business"]; Prepared for the 5:00pm Meeting of the Fed's Open Market
Investment Committee on April 1, 1929 {National Archives ["Federal Reserve
Board File"], Washington, D.C.}. In
September of 1929, the OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE would be warning that: "... there are some indications of a
possible impending recession." Six
months earlier in April, the economy was still experiencing the stimulating
effect of surplus automobile production, but by September, now automobile
manufacturing was going to the dogs: "Building activity has been reduced
still further; automobile production has been receding, and steel production
has reflected these tendencies." And as
for the claimed STIMULATING effect high rates of interest would be having on
agriculture, in fact Gremlin enscrewment was beginning to produce its desired
objective of damages: "The size of the year's crops is
expected to be generally smaller than a year ago. With higher prices the total return to the farmer may be not
short of a year ago... The continued
pressure on the credit situation has also been reflected by increasing reports
from some localities of difficulties of agriculture in securing an adequate
supply of credit." - All
three quotations are from the MINUTES OF THE OPEN MARKET INVESTMENT COMMITTEE,
September 24, 1929 {National Archives ["Federal Reserve Board File"],
Washington, D.C.}. That
greasy little Gremlin, Paul Warburg, very much had his nose in all of
this. He slipped into a FEDERAL
ADVISORY COUNCIL Meeting that was held on May 21, 1929, as the alternate for
W.C. Potter, and he made a Statement and engaged in conversation that Walter
Lichtenstein, Council Secretary, did not feel like recording [see MINUTES OF
FEDERAL ADVISORY COUNCIL for May 21, 1929]. The
combined effect of the many manipulative devices pulled by Gremlins in the Fed
in the latter 1920's was a great contraction in the economy [see generally a
protracted chapter called "The Great Contraction" in A MONETARY
HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, 1867-1960 by Milton Friedman [Princeton University
Press, Princeton (1963)]. =============================================================[217] The
only existential reason for the Fed's corporate organizational legal structure
lies in the fact that the Fed was sponsored, as you know, by a Special Interest
Group for their own private enrichment:
[218] [218]============================================================= "Experience
should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's
purposes are beneficent. Men born to
freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of the liberty by evil-minded
rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty
lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without
understanding." - Justice
Louis Brandeis in OLMSTEAD VS. UNITED STATES, 277 U.S. 438, at 479 (1927). Although
the Gremlins who sneaked the FEDERAL RESERVE ACT through Congress were by no
means well meaning, they did try to convey the image that this piece of
legislation was so oriented. =============================================================[218] A
network of Gremlins operating under the intellectual aegis of Rothschild
nominee Paul Warburg and associates, who prodded and tricked an otherwise
reticent and naive Congress into enacting the initiating legislation in
1913. [219] [219]============================================================= Greasy
little Gremlins like Paul Warburg are steeped in the strategic use of deception
as a tool to accomplish their objectives; and like the mentor from the First Estate,
Lucifer, they find many circumstances come to pass where the use of such
deception has yielded impressive immediate benefits -- yet Father continues to
warn against it. This deceptive
intellectual orientation of Gremlins has been so ingrained in them from the
First Estate, that Gremlins find the accurate presentation of facts now to be
very difficult to construct. This
deception surfaced, for example, when one Gremlin was speaking highly of
another Gremlin: "... it is known only to a very few
exactly how great is the indebtedness of the United States to Mr. Warburg. For it may be stated 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 Federal
Reserve Act has frankly accepted the principles of the Aldrich bill; and these
principles... were the creation of Mr. Warburg and Mr. Warburg alone... But having set out on the task [to create
the Federal Reserve], there was no stopping [Paul Warburg], and from year to
year essay upon essay flowed from his facile pen, giving more precision and
point to his fundamental principles until he was recognized as the real leader
in the new movement. The Federal Reserve
Act will be associated in history with the name of Paul Warburg..." - Gremlin
Edwin Seligman offering introductory remarks in IV PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY
OF POLITICAL SCIENCE #4, at 387 [Columbia University, New York (April, 1914)];
there then follows numerous essays written by Paul Warburg praising the
circulation of paper currency and the Federal Reserve System. Yet
Paul Warburg did not intellectually create the Federal Reserve System -- the
Rothschilds did, but the Rothschilds wanted to stay in the background and blend
themselves into the shadowy corners of Europe; Paul Warburg was hired by them
to take all the flack among those who could be expected to probe a little
deeper in searching for the Fed's Gremlin sponsors. "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." - Elisha
Garrison in ROOSEVELT, WILSON AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE LAW [Christopher
Publishing Housing, Boston (1931)]. =============================================================[219] Designed
by Gremlins the way it was, [220] [220]============================================================= The
illicit statutory sponsorship of the Federal Reserve Board is often disputed by
collegiate INTELLIGENTSIA clowns who, without possessing any factual elements
to countermand the background workings of determined Gremlins, continue to
point to Congress itself as the institution responsible for the creation of the
Federal Reserve. Gremlin Paul Warburg
himself has had a few words to say about just where the true origin of statutes
is to be found: "I am told that Congress and the
State Legislatures make the laws...
Instead of saying that legislators make the laws, it would be far more
correct to say that legislatures merely put the finishing touches on the
law. To say that they "make the
laws" is like saying that the books are made by bookbinders, forgetting
that there are authors, printers, and proofreaders too. "... The motive power in lawmaking is
all supplied from somewhere outside the legislative halls... Some intellect outside the realm of active
politics first conceives an idea. It
spreads to the minds of other individuals, slowly at first, but gradually gaining
momentum. Presently there is an
organized movement in its favor; then comes the deluge of propaganda, until the
proposal becomes an issue and the politicians begin to take note of it. A law is half made, and more than half made,
when a large body of aggressive support has been mobilized among the voters;
yet during this part of the process the legislative bodies have nothing
whatever to do with it." - Gremlin
Paul Warburg explaining himself in Volume I THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM: ITS ORIGINS AND GROWTH, at 3 [MacMillian
Company, New York (1930)]. =============================================================[220] and
because of its private corporate ownership and lack of public accountability to
the Congress and to the public. [221] [221]============================================================= General
Public accountability of the Fed is appropriate to the extent that the Fed has
been endowed by its creator with a limited juristic mission in monetary areas
touching a general public interest; and one of the most important instruments
of Federal Reserve power lies in the OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE. Numerous attempts just to get some minimal
public dissemination on transcripts of the Federal Open Market Committee
meetings has fallen on death ears; shrouding their daily maneuverings behind a
veil of secrecy -- a veil they would like to maintain erected for as long as
possible (time has a way of greatly diminishing the possible adverse reaction
that unfavorable information triggers).
The Congress was once propositioned with the idea of requiring the FOMC
to publish publicly, detailed minutes of their meetings. In trying to disable the Congress from doing
this, an old Gremlin stratagem was relied upon: Agree with the necessity for the idea being expounded (so now
your adversary is off guard), but create impediments to the idea by raising
technical reservations that appear to be difficult to overcome and otherwise
discredit the idea as being infeasible for some technical reason. And in overcoming HR 4478, this is just what
Gremlins in the Fed did (Gremlins do not want Government in the sunshine) [see
the testimony of imp bureaucrat Fredrick Schultz as he said he agreed with the
objectives, but then turned around and threw technical reservations at the idea
to try and discredit the idea on its merits, in A BILL TO AMEND THE FEDERAL
RESERVE ACT ["Hearings Before a Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy
on HR 4478 of the House Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs"],
97th Congress, First Session (September, 1981)]. =============================================================[221] The Fed
has never been audited by the GAO, [222] [222]============================================================= "It
is no secret that I have long been concerned about the aloofness of the Federal
Reserve from both the executive branch and the Congress. Although the Federal Reserve System is a
creature of Congress, it is not subject to any of the usual Government budgetary,
auditing and appropriations procedures." - Wright
Patman, Chairman of the House Committee on Domestic Finance, in THE FEDERAL
RESERVE AFTER 50 YEARS ["Hearings
before the Subcommittee on Domestic Finance"], 88th Congress, 2nd Session,
Volume 1, page 8 [GPO, Washington, D.C. (January and February, 1964)]. =============================================================[222] the Fed
as a privately owned corporation is able to provide its European owners with an
exceptionally lush American gold mine they would not otherwise experience if
title to Federal Reserve stock were ever to be reclaimed by the Congress under
EMINENT DOMAIN JURISDICTION, or simple repeal, or repurchased under a
reservation in its charter. [223] [223]============================================================= But
don't expect such a repurchase to ever take place; the Federal Reserve Board
gives the Congress all profits from certain selected trading activities. In the latter 1970's, this was amounting to
approximately $10 billion a year; not an easy loss of revenue for a greedy fat
Congress to go without. So the Congress
does not want to disturb the Fed, and your letters to them, encouraging them to
do so, will continue to fall on death ears. =============================================================[223] So the
Fed exists as a private independent corporation because it was created to act
as a financial enrichment velocity accelerant for its owners [I have a hunch
that it is also the single most profitable wealth institution in the world,
outdancing and outdazzling the top Fortune 100, as well as the Vatican and
several "for profit" political jurisdictions]. The Status of the Federal Reserve System as
a Tortfeasor is not related to its legal charter organization as a corporation,
and neither would its Tortfeasance be changed, either negative or positive at
all, if it ever were to be absorbed into the Executive Presidential bureaucracy
of Article II. As an Executive Article
II agency, then it would still control inflation since it would still be
controlled by Gremlins; and it would continue to control interest rates and
relative levels of prosperity through its regulatory mechanisms. [224] [224]============================================================= Those
Rothschild Gremlins never stop with their conquests. After mentioning the dominance of the Rothschilds in European
financial affairs, a United States Senator once wrote: "... it might be... possible for 20
or 30 individuals if they controlled the United States Federal Reserve Board,
the Bank of England, the Bank of France, and the Bank of Germany, to enter into
a conspiracy to regulate the volume of the world's currency, thereby
resultantly controlling the prices of the world's commodities, so vitally
affecting the happiness, contentment, occupation, and prosperity of the world's
population. If successful in effecting
such a control, by expanding the world's currency they could inflate prices of
all the world's commodities and then distribute at fictitious values the
securities which they had accumulated.
After such accomplishments the could then decrease the volume of money
thus resultantly deflating or diminishing the prices of all the world's
commodities with resultant greatly diminished prices in securities and then buy
back at bargain prices the securities that they had distributed previously at
inflated prices. If such a conspiracy
existed and continued unchecked this expansion of the volume of money with
increased prices and distribution of securities held by the few followed by a
period of decreased volume of money with resultant decreased prices of all the
world's commodities with reaccumulation of securities at bargain prices would
ultimately result in all the people outside of the few conspirators becoming
practically vassals and peons with the inevitable result that the people
themselves would rise up in their wrath and take from the conspirators their
wealth and probably their lives." - Senator
Jonathan Bourne, Jr. of Oregon, expressing comments on the Wheeler Bill (S.
2487), in Senate Document #109 entitled INDEPENDENT BIMETALLISM OR BOLSHEVISM,
72nd Congress, First Session, pages 8 and 9 [GPO (June 15, 1932)]. Senate
Bill 2487 provided for the free coinage of silver and gold at a ratio of
16-to-1. =============================================================[224] That
this Tortfeasance is transparent to its organized form is true because all
Torts originate with people, and at the Fed, there is now a man as chairman who
is uniquely qualified to operate as a joint Tortfeasor with the Rothschilds and
work MAGNUM OPUS Torts on us all:
Gremlin Paul Volcker. [225] [225]============================================================= After
characterizing Gremlin Volcker's politics as being something of an enigma, the
NEW YORK TIMES went on to say that Paul Volcker: "... recognizes 'that Gold and the
fates have put him in a unique position,' a role for which he believes... that
he is singularly well equipped." - THE
NEW YORK TIMES ["Sacrificial Way of Life for Reserve Chairman"], page
26 (Sunday, June 19, 1983). Yes,
Mr. Volcker is VERY well equipped for his mission -- but not to usher in a
generation of prosperity; neither is his Federal Reserve position attributable
to "God and the fates," but actually to his brother from the First
Estate, Lucifer, whom Paul Volcker once betrayed -- and now Lucifer is going to
get even at Father's Last Day. =============================================================[225] This is
the same Treasury Department staff member Paul Volcker who played a supporting
role in the theft of American gold bullion deposits from Fort Knox in the 1960's,
[226] [226]============================================================= The
theft of American gold bullion deposits from the Fort Knox Depository in Kentucky
by the Four Rockefeller Brothers, in which Paul Volcker participated, was a
smooth inside job -- a job which only duplicated a previous inside Treasury job
that was pulled off earlier in 1943: "... 14,000 tons of silver from the
Treasury reserve of American paper money was secretly taken from the Treasury
vaults (although still carried publicly on the Treasury balance
sheets)..." - Carroll
Quigley in TRAGEDY AND HOPE, at 855 [MacMillian Company, New York (1974)]. [Mr.
Quigley wants us to believe that the 14,000 tons of silver in its entirety went
into an Oak Ridge Government building for electrical wiring]. =============================================================[226] and the
same Paul Volcker who now holds a controlling executive position in the Fed, a
position that when he campaigned for it in 1978, he openly called for the
"controlled disintegration" of the United States. [227] [227]============================================================= During
a speech at a FRED HIRSCH MEMORIAL LECTURE at Warwick University, Coventry,
England, on November 9, 1978. =============================================================[227] Since
the corporate structure of the King's peripheral Commercial interests, of and
by themselves, do not provide the King with a mechanism to work Torts on us he
would be otherwise restrained from doing through executive agencies, I have no
objection to the King creating corporations, and I would suggest that arguments
to the contrary will likely be rebuffed by the Supreme Court. [228] [228]============================================================= During
Constitutional ratification discussions, our Founding Fathers did not want to
even talk about the possibility that a National Bank might be created someday,
due to the possible rejection the draft Constitution might encounter as it went
from one State to the next for Ratification: "The power to incorporate a bank is
not among those enumerated in the constitution. It is known, that the very power, thus proposed, as a means, was
rejected, as an end, by the convention [of 1787], which formed the
Constitution. A proposition was made in
that body, to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower
them to create corporations. But the whole
was rejected; and one of the reasons of the rejection urged in debate was, that
they then would have a power to create a bank, which would render the great
cities, where there was prejudices and jealousies on that subject, adverse to
the adoption of the Constitution [Volume 4, Jefferson's Correspondence, pages
523 and 524]." - Joseph
Story in III COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION, at 128 ["Powers of
Congress"] (Cambridge, 1833). However,
just because the CREATION OF CORPORATIONS CLAUSE never made it into the final
draft of the Constitution, does not disable the United States today from
creating corporations, since many other enabling acts were written into the
Constitution that, although sounding nice and making the Constitution look
complete in appearances, were actually jurisdictionally unnecessary. =============================================================[228] If at
all you question the legal authenticity of my conclusory statements, then
please read M'CULLOCH VS. MARYLAND, [229] [229]============================================================= 17 U.S.
316 (1819). =============================================================[229] and
tell me that the Congress cannot create corporations or nationally chartered
banks. In that case, the Supreme Court
specifically talks, at length, about the Constitutionality of creating
corporations, and the implied powers of Congress to do so. [230] [230]============================================================= "That
a national bank is an appropriate means to carry into effect some of the
enumerated powers of the Government, and that this can be best done by erecting
it into a corporation, may be established by the most satisfactory
reasoning. It has a relationship, more
or less direct, to the power of collecting taxes, to that of borrowing money,
to that of regulating trade between the states, and to those raising and
maintaining fleets and armies. And it
may be added, that it has a most important bearing upon the regulation of
currency between the states. It is an
instrument, which has been usually applied by Governments in the administration
of their fiscal and financial operations." - Joseph
Story in III COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION 134, ["Powers of
Congress"] (Cambridge, 1833). =============================================================[230] Also
foolish is the line that I hear that no tax could possibly be due to the King,
because the IRS is not an Article II Executive Agency and functions as a
private contracting corporation. [231] [231]============================================================= The IRS
is not a Federal Agency; see: - Title
5, Section 903 [PRESIDENTIAL REORGANIZATION JURISDICTION]; - GOVERNMENT
REORGANIZATION ORDER Number 26 (1952); - GOVERNMENT
REORGANIZATION ORDER Number 1 (1950); - 39
THE FEDERAL REGISTER, Number 62 (26 March 1974), Section 1111.4, et seq. =============================================================[231] I see
no general impediment to the King hiring private contractors to assist him in
tax collections. [232] [232]============================================================= Responsibility
for the administration and enforcement of the Revenue Laws is vested in the
Secretary of the Treasury, pursuant to Title 26, Section 7801(a). In turn, by one more layer of delegation,
the Internal Revenue Service is vested with the tax collection responsibilities
for the Secretary. See DONALDSON VS. UNITED
STATES, 400 U.S. 517, at 534 (1970), and 39 THE FEDERAL REGISTER 2417, et seq.
(1970). =============================================================[232] Private
contract bounty hunters have been used to find criminal fugitives for
centuries, so why aren't you Protestors objecting to that? Incidentally, in the old days of our Mother
England in the 1700's, there was a practice going around Europe called
PRIVATEERING, which is when small privately owned armed navies would roam the
High Seas in search of prizes to steal for themselves. A PRIVATEER, then, is an armed vessel, owned,
fitted out, and manned by private parties with a legal commission from a
political jurisdiction authorizing it to capture the vessels and cargo's of the
enemy. This legal commission, called a
LETTER OF MARQUE, impressed upon the PRIVATEER'S banditry an aura of legitimacy
in International Law, without which Privateers would be hung as pirates by any
nation's ships fast enough to capture one.
But back safely at home, the LETTER OF MARQUE also served as a legal
basis for an Admiralty Court to condemn the captured property, the Prize, and
assign it over to the Privateers themselves who stole it (this was also called
PRIZE JURISDICTION). [233] [233]============================================================= PRIVATEERING
and all of its associated intrigue of smuggling, thievery, and pirates, was
once quite active on the High Seas from the 1600's up until the American Civil
War. On the North Coast of Africa there
was once numerous occasions in the early 1800's when American hostages were
grabbed and military engagements were entered into against those little
hoodlums called the BARBARY CORSAIRS.
[See THE BARBARY CORSAIRS by S. Lane-Poole, State Mutual Books and
Periodical Service, New York (1985)].
PRIVATEERING was somewhat abolished, or perhaps toned down, by the
DECLARATION OF PARIS in 1856; but PRIVATEERING was extensive during the Civil
War, and the United States Congress soon would be giving President Abraham
Lincoln a grant of jurisdiction to commission Privateers. [See THE BARBARY COAST by Henry Field, C.
Scribner's Sons, New York (1893); and THE BARBARY SLAVES by Stephen Clissold,
P. Elek Publishers, London (1977)]. For
a short story on PRIVATEERS during the Civil War, see the NEW YORK TIMES for
Tuesday, September 29, 1863, page 1, in an article entitled "Another
Privateer Fitting Out," discussing how the Confederate ship THE FLORIDA
was offered French police protection from seizure from Union ships by France
while she was parking at Brest shipyards for repairs. Yet, a variation on PRIVATEERING continued into the 1900's, as
Russian volunteer vessels once seized neutral commerce in the Red Sea [see
Edwin Moxen in RUSSIAN RAIDS ON NEUTRAL COMMERCE, 3 Michigan Law Review 1
(1904)]. For a discussion from a legal
perspective on Privateering and LETTERS OF MARQUE, see THE FIRST FEDERAL COURT
by Henry J. Bourguignon, page 3 [American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia
(1977)]. Today, PRIVATEERING is a crime
for American Citizens [see Title 18, Section 1654 "Arming or Serving as
Privateers"]. =============================================================[233] [In remarkably similar ways today in the
United States, private contracting Privateers are at work in the IRS, acting
under a legal commission, which largely precludes the imposition of Civil
Rights damages because of their operating under the recourse protective
umbrella (color) of Governmental authority; and like the Privateers of old,
today's tax loot is also handed over to a private party: To the owners of the Federal Reserve System,
for payment on the King's National Debt.
And even more astounding in parallel, today's IRS collection of loot and
banditry is also governed under a Federal Court acting under the rules of
Admiralty Jurisdiction, as I will explain later on.] That
analogy between the PRIVATEERS of old out on the High Seas, and of today's
private contracting termites inside the IRS sounds pretty good, doesn't
it? The requisite blend of comparative
background elements of thievery are present, an underlying tone of IRS illegitimacy
runs throughout the analogy, and that, generally is the kind of talk Tax
Protestors like to hear... "looters," "theft," "banditry"
and the like. Yes, analogies like that
are music to the ears of Tax Protestors EXTRAORDINAIRE like Irwin Schiff, [234] [234]============================================================= HOW
ANYONE CAN STOP PAYING INCOME TAXES [Freedom Books, Hamden, Connecticut
(1982)]. =============================================================[234] and
Representative George Hansen. [235] [235]============================================================= TO
HARASS OUR PEOPLE: THE IRS AND
GOVERNMENT ABUSE OF POWER [Positive Publications, Washington, D.C. (1984)]. =============================================================[235] But
just one tiny little problem surfaces here which makes the PRIVATEERS TO IRS
TERMITES analogy fall apart and collapse, a tiny little problem Irwin Schiff
and George Hansen do not want to talk about -- a tiny little problem most folks
had better start to talk about, NOW, before getting in front of Father at the
Last Day: An invisible Contract. Today, the Protestor has entered into a
series of invisible contracts with the King, numerous contracts which are
invisible to the Protestors, as I will explain later on, so now all of those
termites in the IRS are merely collecting monies rightfully due the King by
contract, whereas in contrast the PRIVATEERS of old had no such contract in
effect to grab the property belonging to others. Therefore, if I was a Federal Magistrate, I don't know if I would
be as patient as some of the State and Federal Magistrates I have seen in
hearings and trials in trying to explain error to a Constitutionalist, so
called, but whose words were falling on death ears. One prime example of how the carefully chosen words of a Federal
Judge falls on death ears, occurs when a petitioner is being rebuffed when
throwing a challenge to the Constitutionality of either the Federal Reserve
System or Federal Reserve Notes at the Judge.
One of the reasons why Federal Magistrates and the United States Supreme
Court are so reluctant to declare the Fed or its Notes as being
unConstitutional [aside from the fact that many Federal Judges find the idea to
be philosophically uncomfortable and ideologically irritating] is because, as a
matter of Law, the use and recirculation of Federal Reserve Notes falls under
the governing doctrine applicable to Commercial Contract Law Jurisprudence, so
the Constitution is largely irrelevant right from the beginning, as the entire
closed private domain of King's Commerce is a benefit/privilege created by the
Congress, and there is nothing in the Constitution to restrain it. [236] [236]============================================================= Federal
Judges took their cue long ago to lay off legislative prerogatives in this area
of circulating paper money: "The case of TREVETT VS. WELDON, in
1786, in Rhode Island, is an instance of this sort... The judges in that case decided, that a law making paper money a
tender in payment of debts was unconstitutional and against the principles of
magna carta. They were compelled to
appear before the legislature to vindicate themselves; and the next year...
they were left out of office for having questioned the legislative power." - Joseph
Story in III COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION, at 469, footnote 1 (Cambridge,
1833). =============================================================[236] Assuming
for a moment, ARGUENDO, that the interposition of Contract Law was irrelevant,
then aside from that there are a large number of separate and distinct sources
of jurisdiction the King can claim as authority to issue out debased paper
currency. But before listing those
sources, we need to back up a step. An
examination of the Federal Reserve's Charter also reveals that, in Warburg's
devilishly brilliant cleverness, the Congress never recited any specific
sources of Constitutional Jurisdiction when it created the Fed. Nowhere in its Charter does it say something
like "... the powers of Article I, Section 10 are hereby invoked..." An examination of numerous other statutory
programs reveals that the Congress rarely ever bothers to recite its claimed
sources of Constitutional Jurisdiction for those programs either (in those Acts
that I have searched through). Since
the Congress did not recite any Constitutional sources of authority when it
allegedly passed the Federal Reserve Act, [237] [237]============================================================= Whether
or not there was a legal minimum quorum in the United States Senate on that
pre-Christmas December day of 1913, is disputed. =============================================================[237] this
now means that whenever a Protestor comes forward today and throws a Case at a
Federal Judge where the Constitutionality of the Federal Reserve is being
challenged, the United States Attorney General is thereby free to throw any set
of defensive arguments back at the Protestor that the Attorney General feels
like, in order to justify the Constitutionality of the challenged Act of
Congress. The bottom line is that the
Attorney General can and will claim sources of Constitutional Jurisdiction at
some future date that the Congress never really contemplated when it originally
created the program (if a quorum ever really did exist to create the Fed). However unfair this appears to be, would
someone please show me where the Constitution requires the Congress to recite
its enabling Jurisdiction on each Act it passes? The Framers were also negligent in this respect, and so there is
no such recital requirement, and so now the Attorney General is free to come up
with a long list of claimed sources of Constitutional Jurisdiction that the
Protestor never ever dreamed of; a list that the Congress never really
considered at the time of possible enactment; a list that Federal Judges are
well acquainted with; a list that I will be showing you later on. But
first, we need to cover some background material so the concepts I am about to
explain can be understood easily.
Remember that correct Principles of Nature operate across all factual
settings; if the Principle is correct, what works in one factual setting will
work for similar reasons in another setting.
So with that in mind, if we had a power boat built for us, and that boat
had say, 12 gas tanks built into it (perhaps distributed throughout the hull as
ballast to achieve some desired weight and loading balancing effects), or if we
were piloting an L-1011 jet aircraft with the numerous bladder, wing, and
fuselage fuel tanks that it has located throughout its body, then in order for
the boat or jet to be stopped dead cold, all fuel tanks individually need to be
empty, first. If so much as one fuel
tank has any fuel in it at all, then the boat or jet will continue forward at
maximum cruising velocity, without any letup, until all tanks are completely
empty. Only the complete exhaustion of
all fuel from all of the separate fuel tanks, without any exceptions, will
return the jet or boat into that quiescent state of rest that it once came
from. The fact that one or several of
the fuel tanks may be vacant of fuel will offer no propulsion impairment or
reduction in velocity -- NONE WHATSOEVER. As we
turn from a high-powered machine or aviation setting where a manufactured
product is under propulsion from multiple and independent sources of fuel, as
we turn from that setting to a setting where a legal product was also
manufactured by men, like the Federal Reserve Board (Incorporated), we found
out that its propulsion also originates from multiple sources of jurisdictional
fuel. And so in order to return the
Federal Reserve Board to its quiescent STATUS QUO ANTE state of non-existence,
of pre-December, 1913, then a large number of separate and distinct sources of
Constitutional fuel need to be individually voided. If so much as one single source of Constitutional fuel is left
remaining -- just so much as one single Clause -- by having survived the blows
of a Protestor in adversary judicial proceedings, then the Federal Reserve
Board will carry on at maximum cruising velocity with the same identical full
force and effect as if the Protestor had never thrown anything at the Fed. Mindful of this background information, now
we can discuss the multiple sources of jurisdictional fuel that the King has
got up his sleeve to retortionally throw back at pesky little Protestors. While
examining the main Legal Tender and National bank related cases in the Supreme
Court, [238] [238]============================================================= - M'CULLOCH
VS. MARYLAND, 17 U.S. 316 (1819); - HEPBURN
VS. GRISWOLD, 75 U.S. 603 (1870); - KNOX
VS. LEE, 79 U.S. 457 (1871); - JULLIARD
VS. GREENMAN, 110 U.S. 421 (1884). =============================================================[238] we see
that the right of the Congress to create a bank and have that bank issue out
national currency, as well the right of Congress to designate anything it wants
as Legal Tender, is a power directly related to the right of the Congress, by
both express and incidental powers: 1. To
declare war; [239] 2. To
suppress insurrection; 3. To
raise and support armies; [240] 4. To
provide and maintain a navy (notice the words "maintain" and "support,"
as they mean financially through taxes and money); 5. To
regulate Interstate Commerce; [241] 6. To
facilitate the laying and collecting of taxes; [242] 7. Existing
as an attribute of Sovereignty; [243] 8. To
coin and circulate money pursuant to Article I, Section 8; 9. To
pay debts and facilitate the borrowing of money on the credit of the United
States (Article I, Section 8); [244] 10. To
provide for the common defense and general welfare. [239,
240, 241, 242, 243, 244]==================================== [239] The Legal Tender statutes were enacted in the
Civil War era, when national resources were stretched thin: "... to handle the vast amount of
means necessary for the prosecution of this war, to enable the people to pay in
and the Government to pay out, we must have a larger and more abundant currency
that we have heretofore found to be necessary.
The accustomed currency [of hard gold and silver] is wholly inadequate. The Government has for many years used only
gold and silver for this purpose, and it is deeply lamented that it is obliged
to depart from this desirable standard.
But we are left with no option." - Representative
John Crisfield of Maryland, in a speech before Congress on February 5, 1862
[CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE, 37th Congress, 2nd Session, Appendix, page 48 et seq.]. [240] "... the National Government [can]
exercise... its powers to establish and maintain a bank, implied as an incident
to the borrowing, taxing, war, and other powers specifically granted to the
National Government by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution." - HELVERING
VS. GERHARDT, 304 U.S. 405, at 411 (1937). [241] "The power to regulate commerce is general
and unlimited in its terms. The full
power to regulate a particular subject implies the whole power, and leaves no
residium." - Joseph
Story in III COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION, at 513 ["Powers of Congress
-- Commerce"] (Cambridge, 1833). [242] "Here the substantive power to tax was
allowed to be employed for improving the currency." - KNOX
VS. LEE, 79 U.S. 457, at 544 (1871). [243] "The power to coin money is one of the
ordinary prerogatives of Sovereignty, and is almost universally exercised in
order to preserve a proper circulation of good coin of a known value in the
home market... In England, this
prerogative belongs to the Crown; and in former ages, it was greatly abused;
for base coin was often coined and circulated by its authority, at a value far
above its intrinsic worth; and thus taxes of a burdensome nature were indirectly
laid upon the people." - Joseph
Story in III COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION, at 17 ["Powers of Congress
-- Coinage"] (Cambridge, 1833). [244] "A bank has a direct relation to the power
of borrowing money, because it is an unusual, and in sudden emergencies, an
essential instrument, in the obtaining of loans to Government. A nation is threatened with a war; large
sums are wanted on a sudden [basis] to make the requisite preparations; taxes
are laid for this purpose; but it requires time to obtain the benefit of them;
anticipation is indispensable. If there
is a bank, the supply can at once be had; if there be none, loans from
individuals must be sought. The
progress of these is often too slow for the exigency; in some situations they
are not practical at all." - Joseph
Story in III COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION, at 139 [footnote -- "Powers
of Congress -- Bank"] (Cambridge, 1833). ====================================[239,
240, 241, 242, 243, 244] all of
which were involved, to a lessor and greater extent, at the time the LEGAL
TENDER ACTS were enacted by the Congress in the Civil War era of the 1800's. [245] [245]============================================================= "We
do not propose to dilate at length upon the circumstances i which the country
was placed when Congress attempted to make Treasury Notes a Legal Tender. They are of too recent occurrence to justify
enlarged description. Suffice it to say
that a Civil War was then raging which seriously threatened the overthrow of
the Government and the destruction of the Constitution itself. It demanded the equipment and support of
large armies and navies, and the employment of money to an extent beyond the
capacity of all ordinary sources of supply.
Meanwhile, the public Treasury was nearly empty, and the credit of the
Government, if not stretched to its utmost tension, had become nearly
exhausted. Moneyed institutions had
advanced largely of their means, and more could not be expected of them. They had been compelled to suspend specie
payments. Taxation was inadequate to
pay even the interest on the debt already incurred, and it was impossible to
await the income of additional taxes.
The necessity was immediate and pressing. The army was unpaid.
There was then due to the soldiers in the field nearly a score of
millions of dollars. The requisition
from the War and Navy Departments for supplies exceeded fifty millions, and the
current expenditure was over one million per day. The entire amount of coin in the country, including that in
private hands, as well as that in banking institutions, was insufficient to
supply the need of the Government for three months, had it all poured into the
Treasury. Foreign credit we had none. We say nothing of the overhanging paralysis
of trade, and of business generally, which threatened loss of confidence in the
ability of the Government to maintain its continued existence, and therewith
the complete destruction of all remaining national credit. "It was at this time and in such
circumstances that Congress was called upon to devise means for maintaining the
army and navy, for securing the large supplies of money needed and, indeed, for
the preservation of the Government created by the Constitution. It was at such a time and in such an emergency
that nothing else would have supplied the absolute necessities of the Treasury,
that nothing else would have enabled the Government to maintain its armies and
navies, that nothing else would have saved the Government and the Constitution
from destruction, while the Legal Tender Acts would, could any one be bold
enough to assert that Congress transgressed its powers? Or if these enactments did not work these
results, can it be maintained now that they were not for a legitimate end, or 'appropriate
and adapted to that end?' in the language of Chief Justice Marshall? That they did work such results is not to be
doubted. Something revived the drooping
faith of the people; something brought immediately to the Government's aid the
resources of the nation, and something enabled the successful prosecution of
the war, and the preservation of national life. What was it, if not the Legal Tender enactments?" - KNOX
VS. LEE, 79 U.S. 457, at 539 (1871). =============================================================[245] And the
correlation in effect between the right to enact Legal Tender Statutes and the
various War Powers of the Congress applies both in times of war, [246] [246]============================================================= - KNOX
VS. LEE, 79 U.S. 457 (1871). =============================================================[246] and
also in times of peace. [247] [247]============================================================= JULLIARD
VS. GREENMAN, 110 U.S. 421 (1884). =============================================================[247] So what
is important for Tax Protestors to understand is that when they attack either
the Federal Reserve in whole or part, or the designation of its CIRCULATING
EVIDENCES OF DEBT at Legal Tender -- and the Protestor goes through all of the
Supreme Court rulings on the MONEY COIN CLAUSE in Article I, Section 8, [248] [248]============================================================= As a
point of beginning, Article I, Section 10 limits itself to the STATES ["No
State shall..."], and not to the Congress. "The states can no longer declare
what shall be money, or regulate its value." - KNOX
VS. LEE, 79 U.S. 457, at 545 (1871). Protestors
trying to argue now that Article I, Section 10 restrains the Congress -- meaning
something directly contrary to what is written, is considerable foolishness. =============================================================[248] and all
the Constitutional Convention debates on the MONEY COIN CLAUSE, and the material
discussed in secret Convention meetings back in 1787, and all of the
Legislation enacted pursuant thereto, and all of the quotations from the
Founding Fathers, such as in Max Farrand's works [249] [249]============================================================= THE
RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787 [Yale University Press, New Haven
(1937); 4 volumes]. =============================================================[249] or
"The Federalist," and numerous other private correspondence, and all
the lower court opinions on CHOSES IN ACTION and coins and debasement theories,
and of their citations on the monetary disabilities of the United States; after
the Tax Protestor goes through all that work and effort, he has only told the
Supreme Court about 10% of what the Supreme Court needs to hear in order to
invalidate the Status of Federal Reserve Notes as Legal Tender
instruments: Because the right to
create banks and let that bank circulate Legal Tender is also related to WAR
POWERS and the SUPPRESSION OF DOMESTIC INSURRECTIONS, to RAISING TAXES, [250] [250]============================================================= See THE
FEDERAL TAXING POWER AS A MEANS OF ESTABLISHING A UNIFIED BANKING SYSTEM, Notes
["Legislation"], 46 Harvard Law Review 143 (1932). =============================================================[250] the
INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE, the Article I, Section 8 MONEY COIN CLAUSE, and the
RAISING AND FINANCING ARMIES AND NAVIES CLAUSES, and of course SOVEREIGNTY
itself -- and they are independent stand-alone sources of jurisdiction that
have to be attacked individually, just like a jet or boat with several fuel
tanks needs to have each separate tank vacated before the vehicle will come to
a stationary state. [251] [251]============================================================= "It
is absolutely essential to independent national existence that Government
should have a firm hold on the two great Sovereign instrumentalities of the
sword and the purse, and the right to wield them without restriction on
occasions of national peril. In certain
emergencies Government must have at its command, not only the personal services
-- the bodies and lives -- of its Citizens, but the lessor, though not less
essential, power of absolute control over the resources of the country. Its armies must be filled, and its navies
manned, by the Citizens in person. Its
materials of war, its munitions, equipment, and commissary stores must come
from the industry of the country. This
can only be stimulated into activity by a proper financial system, especially
as regards the currency." - KNOX
VS. LEE, 79 U.S. 457 [Justice Bradley, concurring] (1871). =============================================================[251] Will
someone please tell me how to challenge the Fed based on the INTERSTATE
COMMERCE CLAUSE? [252] [252]============================================================= "The
power of Congress over interstate commerce is 'complete in itself, may be
executed to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are
prescribed in the Constitution'." - UNITED
STATES VS. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100, at 114 (1940). =============================================================[252] What
grant of intervening and manipulative power is more broad than the Interstate
Commerce Clause? With that Clause,
anything goes. How are you going to
attack Federal Reserve Notes as being a defective use of the RAISING AND
FINANCING OR ARMIES AND NAVIES CLAUSES?
[253] [253]============================================================= Remember
the Legal Tender statutes were born in the fires of the Civil War, when there
was a great exigency and importance associated with the idea of raising a lot
of money very quickly; yet, there were also disagreements on the floor of the
Congress, and reservations were expressed then as to the Constitutionality of
the proposed paper money that would be circulating: "The sum of the whole argument has
been made in favor of the Constitutionality of the power of Congress to declare
the Treasury notes contemplated by this bill a legal tender in payment of all
debts, public and private, may be stated in these three propositions: "First, Congress may declare
these notes a legal tender because it is not inhibited; "Secondly, the Government must
maintain itself, and Congress may exercise all the power and adopt any measure
it judges necessary for that object; "Thirdly, that the power to
declare these notes a legal tender is a means necessary and proper to the full
execution of the power to regulate commerce. "This provision is as inexpedient as
it is unconstitutional. It is a
legislative declaration of national bankruptcy. It is saying to the world that this Government is unable to meet
its obligations at their real value; and must compound with its creditors at a
discount... "This provision attempts the
impossible thing of giving to paper the value of gold..." - Representative
John Crisfield of Maryland, in a speech in Congress on February 5, 1862 [CONGRESSIONAL
GLOBE, 37th Congress, 2nd Session, Appendix, page 48 et seq.] =============================================================[253] The
answer is that you are not going to.
There are some sharp attorneys like Edwin Vieira (Mr. Solyom's attorney),
[254] [254]============================================================= Edwin
Vieira represented Richard Solyom in a Stated related EMINENT DOMAIN
PROCEEDING, and challenged the right of a State to force the acceptance of
Federal Reserve Notes as the QUID PRO QUO for his land that the State wanted to
grab. Edwin Vieira argued the monetary
disabilities of Article I, Section 10 in an action against a STATE, which at
least is a correct point of beginning -- a lot more than what I can say for Tax
Protestors throwing Article I, Section 10 arguments at THE CONGRESS. Edwin Vieira also wrote a book discussing
the monetary powers and disabilities of the United States Constitution; see
PIECES OF EIGHT by Edwin Vieira, Jr. [Devin-Adair, Old Greenwich, Connecticut
(1983)]. =============================================================[254] and on
the other hand there are some INTELLIGENTSIA clowns; and any judicial
rebuffment experienced by attorneys throwing Protestor caliber arguments at
Federal Judges is a FULLY EARNED ACCOUNT >phrase originated by Ayn Rand<,
as any flaky arguments centered singularly around just the GOLD AND SILVER COIN
CLAUSE of Article I, Section 10 are just plain stupid: You are misleading your readers, delivering
naught to your clients for your fees, and as attorneys you should know
better. [255] [255]============================================================= You
lawyers use that license of your's as a tool to impress and intellectually
intimidate people, and since that is your standard, I would then hold you to it
and order your disbarment if I had any supervisory jurisdictional interest in
your license, just like Jerome Daly from Minnesota was once suspended from the
Practice of Law for his flaky money arguments.
In the JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURT for Credit River, Minnesota, on
December 7, 1968, Jerome Daly once scored an impressive victory before a jury,
on what was largely a stipulated factual setting of FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION on
a $14,000 mortgage that Jerome Daly had defaulted on. Seemingly, he was off to a good start, but a continuing series of
rebuffments later on before judges cast his money arguments off on an illicit
tangent, and when he refused to back off, his license was suspended. =============================================================[255] Other
rulings also affirm the broad application of monetary powers. Later on in VEAZIE BANK VS. FENNO, [256] [256]============================================================= 75 U.S.
533 (1869). =============================================================[256] the
Chief Justice, speaking for the Supreme Court, ruled that it is the
Constitutional right of the Congress to provide a currency for the whole
country; and that this might be done with coin, or by United States Notes, or
by notes of banks chartered by the Congress.
Other cases replicate the same line.
For example: "In VEAZIE BANK VS. FENNO [75 U.S.
533 (1869)], decided at the present term, this court held, after full
consideration, that it was the privilege of Congress to furnish this country
with the currency to be used by it in the transaction of business, whether this
was done by means of coin, of notes of the United States, or of banks created
by Congress." [257] [257]============================================================= HEPBURN
VS. GRISWOLD, 75 U.S. 603 (1870). =============================================================[257] So
asking a Federal Judge to declare the Federal Reserve System or its Notes as
being unConstitutional based on the MONETARY CLAUSE of Article I, Section 8 is
facially only a small slice of the larger total argument pie that Judges need
to hear. [258] [258]============================================================= When I
advocate folks taking cognizance of the fact that the King has many different
independent sources of jurisdiction to pull from in order to justify the
existence of the Federal Reserve Board and those paper notes that his Legal
Tender statutes have designated to be his currency, please do not construe that
with any philosophical inclination on my part that might appear to favor the
King issuing out such paper based circulating instruments that excite Gremlins
so much in elevated enscrewment ecstacy; I am different from Protestors only in
the limited sense that I always evaluate both sides of an issue before throwing
something at a Judge. Refusing to
badmouth adversaries does not mean that you agree with them philosophically,
nor does it inferentially suggest that one is in alignment with the adversary's
objectives; refusing to badmouth means no more than realizing that the true
remedy for correcting these currency Torts will not lie in a Courtroom. Therefore, by examining the case from the
adversary's perspective, frequently I uncover real error in positions taken by
Protestors, but by examining the case from the King's perspective, that does
not mean that I am sympathetic with the King's MODUS OPERANDI or his
objectives. Unlike Protestors, I do not
walk into a judicial confrontation with anyone assuming that I am absolutely
right, convinced that there is nothing the other fellow has to say that is of
any value, and then simply expecting justice to be administered in my favor -- such
a person is necessarily in a very UNTEACHABLE state of mind -- he will miss
many low profile movements going on that are suggestive of error. There may very well be some error in my
position that I did not see (or understand the significance of), so my
excursions into judicial arenas are always exploratory in nature, and I keep
myself in a teachable state of mind (a MODUS OPERANDI Protestors would be wise
to consider emulating). =============================================================[258] One of
the reasons lies in the right of Congress to regulate Interstate Commerce
through its COMMERCE CLAUSE (and arguing deficiencies in that jurisdiction is
foolishness). So any Constitutional
infirmity or tension in effect between the Federal Reserve System and Article
I, Section 8 offers no reason whatever for dissolving the Fed; as the COMMERCE
CLAUSE neatly picks up all the loose ends where the restrictive coinage
jurisdiction conferred by Article I, Section 8 might possibly be imperfect, and
renders Judicial dissolution of the Fed inappropriate. [259] [259]============================================================= Some
Federal Reserve Protestors I know are planning to throw some novel protesting
arguments at Federal Judges. Having
concluded that quoting Constitutional restrainments is unlikely to perfect
judicial dissolution of the Federal Reserve System [and correctly so as a
factual matter], these Protestors have decided to step down one level and just
cite judicial reasoning in an attempt to dismantle a small appendage of the
Fed, called the FEDERAL OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE, or FOMC. By researching Supreme Court cases back in
the 1930's, an era when Judicial annulment of Nelson Rockefeller's social
welfare LEX [through his public nominee, imp FDR] was in vogue, these
Protestors intend to cite Cases like: - PANAMA
REFINING COMPANY VS. RYAN, 293 U.S. 388 (1934); - SCHECHTER
POULTRY VS. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495 (1935); - JAMES
CARTER VS. CARTER COAL COMPANY, 298 U.S. 238 (1936); and
then pursuant to reasoning in those Cases, argue that the delegation of
regulatory commercial matters by the Congress to a non-juristic business
association of some type, is unConstitutional: "But would it be seriously contended
that Congress could delegate its legislative authority to trade or industrial associations
or groups as to empower them to enact the laws they deem to be wise and
beneficent for the rehabilitation and expansion of their trade or
industry? Could trade or industrial
associations or groups be constituted legislative bodies for that purpose
because such associations or groups are familiar with the problems of their
enterprises? And could an effort of
that sort be made valid by such a preface of generalities as to permissible
aims as we find in [this NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT that the Supreme
Court is about to run into the ground]?
The answer is obvious. Such a
delegation of legislative power is unknown to our Law and is utterly
inconsistent with the Constitutional prerogatives and duties of Congress." - SCHECHTER
POULTRY VS. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495, at 537 (1935). No
where in the Constitution does it state that "... the Congress shall not
delegate any of its regulatory powers over Commerce to business
associations..." -- as there are numerous negative restrainments and positive
requirements deemed binding on the Congress, but no where appearing in the
Constitution; many are reasonably inferred as existing incidental to what the
Constitution otherwise expressly mandates. By
going after just the FEDERAL OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE appendage within the Fed,
and not the Fed itself, these Protestors are emulating a successful MODUS
OPERANDI used extensively by Gremlins themselves -- by selectively hacking away
at something here a little, and there a little -- slowly and patiently. Whether
or not these Protestors will ultimately succeed is inconclusive at the present
time. There is some merit to their
DELEGATION QUESTION arguments as limited just to the FEDERAL OPEN MARKET
COMMITTEE itself within the Fed; and these arguments are not overruled by the
other wide ranging fundamental sources of jurisdictional fuel the King has to
create the larger Federal Reserve. ... And
for Protestors searching for something to throw at the Gremlin's enrichment
Goliath, that's enough. I am
concerned about whether or not these Protestors can create a sound JUSTICIABLE
CONTROVERSY, which is another question; to the extent that the FEDERAL OPEN
MARKET COMMITTEE massages around and regulates with juristic force banks and
related financial institutions, STANDING is necessarily limited to the affected
parties absent an evidentiary presentation of the cascading train of damages
originating within the inner sanctums of the FOMC, that were eventually
experienced by the Plaintiff. I would
feel more comfortable with the probable outcome of this impending Case if an
FOMC regulated institution itself appeared as the Plaintiff. Nevertheless, these Protestors will find
that judicial reaction will be mixed -- there are Federal Judges who are
sympathetic with their arguments (as there is merit to them), while there are
other TOUGH COOKIE Federal Judges who will take advantage of the factual
opportunity this impending Case presents to them, by throwing snortations at
the Protestors. =============================================================[259] Yes,
Virginia, Paul Warburg knew what he was doing.
But even that is not the full story. QUESTION: How are you Protestors going to attack
Federal Reserve Notes on the floor of the United States Supreme Court? How are you going to attack Sovereignty
itself? Are you going to try and attack
the essence of Sovereignty itself by quoting from the devil himself? If you can't find a quotation from Lucifer
slicing down Sovereignty, then maybe a quotation from one of his hard working
Gremlin assistants might be a point of beginning. [260] [260]============================================================= Gremlin
Zbigniew Brzezinski writing in BETWEEN TWO AGES: AMERICA'S ROLE IN THE TECHNETRONIC AGE, once advocated that the
fiction of Sovereignty must be replaced with reality: "The doctrine of sovereignty created
the institutional basis for challenging the secular authority of established
religion, and this challenge in turned paved the way for the emergence of the
abstract conception of the nation-state.
Sovereignty vested in the people, instead of Sovereignty vested in the
king, was the consummation of the process which in the two centuries preceding
the French and American revolutions radically altered the structure of authority
in the West and prepared the ground for a new dominant concept of reality... "The nation-state as a fundamental
unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the principal creative
force: 'International banks and
multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in
advance of the political concepts of the nation-state.' But as the nation-state is gradually
yielding its sovereignty, the psychological importance of the national
community is rising, and the attempt to establish an equilibrium between the
imperatives of the [Corporate Socialist Rockefeller Cartel's] new
internationalism and the need for a more intimate national community is the
source of frictions and conflicts." - Gremlin
Zbigniew Brzezinski in BETWEEN TWO AGES:
AMERICA'S ROLE IN THE TECHNETRONIC AGE, at 70 and 56 [Viking Press, New
York City (1970)]. =============================================================[260] Well,
an attack on Sovereignty like that, although a majestic goal for Gremlins as
they tear down our existing Constitution and the Juristic Institution it
created, and try and replace it with their own, is not much. So now just how does an inherent prerogative
of the Sovereign, of this right to issue out money any way he feels like it, violate
the King's Charter? Answer: There is no violation -- there is no express
Clause restraining the Congress to circulate only that currency that physically
contains gold and silver -- and you are not going to get the chance before the
Supreme Court to attack it. [261] [261]============================================================= Juristic
institutions descend to the level of Commercial game players whenever they
enter into the world of Commerce; so it can be argued that Sovereignty takes a
back seat under some circumstances [this interesting Supreme Court Doctrine on
the declension in status and loss of Sovereignty whenever the King enters into
Commerce, appears in this Letter later with discussing those CIRCULATING
EVIDENCES OF DEBT, Federal Reserve Notes]. =============================================================[261] Our
Founding Fathers did not tie the King's giblets down tight enough with that
level of explicit and blunt language that all Kings need to be restrained
by. [262] [262]============================================================= For
example, the original draft versions of the Second and Fifth Amendments were
far more specific and restrictive than the negotiated comprised milktoast
versions that finally made it through the Congress of 1787. Yes, the Constitution was an INSPIRED
DOCUMENT, but an INSPIRED DOCUMENT does not mean PERFECT DOCUMENT: "We believe that God raised up George
Washington, that He raised up Thomas Jefferson, that He raised up Benjamin
Franklin and those other Patriots who carved out with their swords and with
their pens the character and stability of this great Government which they
hoped would stand forever, an asylum for the oppressed of all nations, where no
man's religion would be questioned, no man would be limited in his honest
service to his Maker, so long as he did not infringe upon the rights of his
fellow men. We believe those men were
inspired to do their work, as we do that Joseph Smith was inspired to begin
this work; just as Galileo, Columbus, and other mighty men of old... were
inspired to gradually pave the way leading to this Dispensation; Sentinels,
standing at different periods down the centuries, playing their parts as they
were inspired of God; gradually dispelling the darkness as they were empowered
by their Creator so to do, that in culmination of the grand scheme of schemes,
this great nation, the Republic of the United States, might be established upon
this land as an asylum for the oppressed; a resting place [a sanctuary] it
might be said, for the ARK OF THE COVENANT, where the Temple of our God might
be built; where the PLAN OF SALVATION might be introduced and practiced in
freedom, and not a dog would wag his tongue in opposition to the purposes of
the Almighty. We believe that this was
His object in creating the Republic of the United States; the only land where
His work could be commenced or the feet of his people come to rest. No other land had such liberal institutions,
had adopted so broad a platform upon which all men might stand. We give glory to those Patriots for the
noble work they did; but we given first glory to God, our Father and their
Father, who inspired them. We take them
by the hand as brothers. We believe
they did nobly their work, even as we would fain do ours, faithfully and well,
that we might not be recreant in the eyes of God, for failing to perform the
mission to which He has appointed us." - Orson
F. Whitney, in a discourse delivered at the Tabernacle on April 19, 1885; 26
JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 194, at 200 [London (1886)]. =============================================================[262] And so
any attack on Federal Reserve Notes will require such an explicit and bluntly
worded Constitutional Amendment, and that is a political operation for the
Legislatures to handle, not something lending itself well in nature to a
Judicial remedy. At best the Judiciary
can rule on cases with the outcome carefully designed to give the Congress an
incentive to get going. An honest
assessment of the total factual setting of monetary history in the United
States will emphasize general naivete among the members of the American
legislatures in 1787: They didn't know
what they were doing, collectively speaking, although there were a few who did
raise their voices in opposition to paper money, like Roger Sherman. [263] [263]============================================================= For
example, in the Continental Congress on August 28th, 1787, "Article 12 was
being discussed. Article 12 was
proposed to be as follows: "Article XII. No state shall coin money; nor grant letters
of marque and reprisals; nor enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation;
nor grant any title of Nobility." "Mr.
Wilson and Mr. Roger Sherman moved to insert after the words COIN MONEY the
words TO EMIT BILLS OF CREDIT, NOR MAKE ANY THING BUT GOLD AND SILVER COIN A
TENDER IN PAYMENT OF DEBTS, thus making those prohibitions against paper money
absolute. "Mr.
Ghorum thought the purpose would be well secured by the provision of Article
XIII, which makes the consent of the General Legislature necessary, and in that
mode, no opposition would be excited; whereas an absolute prohibition of paper
money would rouse the most desperate opposition from its partizans. "Mr.
Sherman thought this a favorable crisis for crushing paper money. If the consent of the Legislature could
authorize emissions of it, the friends of paper money would make every exertion
to get into the legislature in order to license it." - see
Max Farrand's II RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787, at page 439 [Yale
University Press, New Haven (1911-1937)]. Notice
how Mr. Sherman and Mr Ghorum were concerned, knowledgeable and aware of the
exterior opposition to prohibiting the emission of paper bills. There was opposition lying around the
Countryside, opposed to making hard gold and silver mandatory with no
legislative discretion allowed to substitute paper bills for gold and silver
coin. So the reason why we have fraudulent
Federal Reserve Notes running around today is because our Founding Fathers
failed to tie the King down yesterday -- and Federal Judges are not Commie
pinkos when tossing out arguments attacking Federal Reserve Notes. Our Founding Fathers specifically declined
to make explicit and blunt prohibitions against the emission of paper bills
because they knew then that few people wanted such a mandatory restrainment
operating on the Congress, and our Fathers in 1787 did not want to create
opposition to the proposed new Constitution designed to replace the ARTICLES OF
CONFEDERATION. So what we are left with
today is the milktoast of Article I, Section 8. Gremlins have merely take advantage of what our Fathers circumvented
back then; and our Fathers found themselves in such a position because a lot of
folks did not want prohibitions against the emission of paper bills. We did this to ourselves, and Patriots are
snickering at the wrong people. =============================================================[263] Remember
that the Britannic Crown was still quite popular then, and the American
Revolution was a minority rights operation, with many bleeding heart native
Americans opposing severance from the Crown.
And there were also just too few George Masons to go around. The experientially wise know that you never,
ever deal with a King with negative restraining clauses in contracts except
under the most explicit and blunt words that the English Language offers,
because the King will always figure out ways to claim some implicit permission
to work his way around a restraining clause that is sounding in milktoast; but
our Fathers didn't do that. And
compounding the problem drafting such specific language, sprinkled in between
the floor debates and political comprises, were a few traitors of strong influence
(like Alexander Hamilton, who married indirectly into the House of
Rothschild). [264] [264]============================================================= Alexander
Hamilton was born Alexander Levine, of Jewish lineage, in St. Croix, the West Indies. After changing his name and his geographical
situs, he married Elizabeth Schuyler, the second daughter of Phillip Schuyler,
at the bride's home in Albany, New York, on December 14, 1780. The bride's mother was Catherine van
Rensselaer, daughter of Colonel John R. van Rensselaer, who was the son of
Hendrik, the grandson of Killiaen, the first Partroon, and Engeltke (Angelica)
Livingston. The bride had been
characterized as: "... a brunette with the most good
natured, dark, lovely eyes that I ever saw, which threw a beam of good temper
and benevolence over her entire countenance." The
bride was just over 23, and the groom was 25.
Alexander's courtship with Elizabeth that year had been very brief, as
the arranged marriage that it was.
While others have uncovered payment records in the British Museum in
London from the Rothschilds to their nominee Alexander Hamilton, an examination
of his political orientation [particularly his drive to create a national bank]
magnifies his Gremlin stature. There is
quite a large number of Alexander Hamilton related biographics and profile
sketches floating around. See "THE
INTIMATE LIFE OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON," by Allan Hamilton [Charles Scribner's
Sons, New York (1910) [quote on the bride's description, id., at page 95]; and
"ALEXANDER HAMILTON: YOUTH TO
MATURITY, 1755 - 1788," by Broades Mitchell [MacMillian Company, New York
(1957)]. =============================================================[264] who
knew exactly what they were doing, for and on behalf of their sponsors. [265] [265]============================================================= There
has always been a period of Time in the United States when well sponsored imps
have ascended into positions of political prominence; sometimes into Juristic
Institutions, and other times they operate on the outside, perhaps as a
director of a foundation, a historian, or a university professor of some
type. One such imp, financially
sponsored by Rockefeller Cartel interests, has been Rexford Tugwell, who likes
to create the image that he is a historian.
In one of his books, entitled THE EMERGING CONSTITUTION, he really shows
off his Gremlin colors. He tries to
throw derogatory characterizations at our Founding Fathers by pointing
attention over to such things as the acreage of land once owned by Thomas
Jefferson and other economic profile information; but the fact that the Four
Rockefeller Brothers are financially sponsoring little Tug himself to write a
new Constitution to enrich the Brothers is, of course, something this little
imp, speaking with a forked tongue, remains silent on. And he has, of course, just the right
solution for all those CRUCIAL American legal ailments: A new Constitution >see TEXT FILE on THE
NEWSTATES CONSTITUTION, available on some BBS's for downloading< -- designed
along Corporate Socialist lines that would enrich his sponsors in the
Rockefeller Cartel. Under this new
Constitution, large private corporations assume several of the functions once
held exclusively by Juristic Institutions -- such as criminal prosecutions, the
regulation of business, issuance of commercial licenses, and, of course, there
is no Trial by Jury. Rexford Tugwell
shows off his true Gremlin colors by coming down on those great triple Gremlin
irritants: LAISSEZ-FAIRE,
INDIVIDUALISM, and the INDEPENDENCE of national Sovereignty: "So much for the Constitution. But it did not end there; continuing
suspicion of authority allowed LAISSEZ-FAIRE to thrive beyond its time and
allowable scope; and the propensity to contrive produced an affluence we did
not use to advantage because we held to INDIVIDUALISM and INDEPENDENCE in
theory although we created a system of social and economic complexes requiring
integration and organic management. If
these generalizations are accepted, they describe a curious and unanticipated
outcome. It is not certain, for
instance, how much of our affluence is owed to the INDIVIDUALISM that now
threatens to choke its own further growth... "Yet the myth of INDEPENDENCE and
INDIVIDUALISM persists, mostly nowadays as a political appeal, but it furnishes
assurances to unthinking citizens.
These words are regarded with cynical tolerance by intellectuals; but
they still have an appeal to the electorate, and they will until a more
realistic approach has made its way into people's minds... "The laws establishing
[administrative] agencies did not clearly recognize that the businesses
involved were using resources belonging to the people, and lacking this, their
authority to make allocations was hazy.
They were handicapped also by the prevailing belief in
LAISSEZ-FAIRE..." - Rexford
Tugwell in THE EMERGING CONSTITUTION, at 17, 27 and 145 [Harper & Row, New
York (1974); Sponsored by the Rockefeller's FUND FOR THE REPUBLIC in Santa
Monica, California]. Notice
what difficulty Gremlins like little Tug have in restraining themselves not to
throw invectives at those heinous institutions of INDIVIDUALISM, LAISSEZ-FAIRE,
and the INDEPENDENCE of national Sovereignty.
Gremlins do not want INDIVIDUALS to amount to something great on their
own volition [they want men to remain boys, and for everyone to keep their
diapers on by looking to Government for security, for protection, and as a
source of remedies for society's problems]; they do not want LAISSEZ-FAIR [they
want total top down Government control of everything, so that when Government
controls it, then they can control it]; and Gremlins do not want the world
divided up into multiple independent Sovereignties [they want a ONE WORLD
GOVERNMENT, under their control]. Those
are the great Gremlin objectives, and getting rid of that United States
Constitution -- and everything else Majestic, Celestial, and developmental of
INDIVIDUALS that it represents -- is a glorious dream for imps to bask in. [For other attacks on the Founding Fathers
by sponsored self-proclaimed "historians," see imp Charles Beard in
AN ECONOMIC INTERPRETATION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION [The Free Press,
New York (1913)]; who uncovered detailed financial profile information on the
Founders, and then came to the conclusion, as he was paid to do, that the
Constitution was just a legal instrument to self-enrich its creators. Like his brother Rexford Tugwell, CHARLES
BEARD SHOULD BE THE VERY LAST ONE TO TALK.] =============================================================[265] One
might think that with the passage of time, an increase in political SAVOIR
FAIRE might just develop nationally.
But no. If a Constitutional
Convention were held over again today, as is quite close to happening, I am
afraid of the consequences. We need a
Constitutional Convention today in the 1980's like we need the Ortega Brothers
>of Nicaraguan infamy< in the United States Senate representing the State
of New Hampshire. Conservatives
believing a new Constitutional Convention, called for the purpose of a BALANCED
BUDGET AMENDMENT, are playing into the hands of Gremlins, who fully intend to
use that Constitutional Convention to replace our Father's Constitution with
their own; in fact that is how the Constitution of 1787 was proposed to the
States, as a replacement for the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION. And if you don't think Gremlins are smart
enough to use parliamentary devices to work their way around wording in some
State Resolutions calling for such a Convention (attempting to limit the
subject matter discussed in the Convention to just the content of the BALANCED
BUDGET AMENDMENT), then you have no knowledge whatsoever of Gremlins, and you
are not even qualified to exercise such political judgment today when in fact
Gremlins now hold the upper hand in the United States. [266] [266]============================================================= If you
CONSERVATIVES were smart, you would not consider donating money or voting for
any candidate expressing sympathy with either the milktoast Democratic or
Republican Party Platforms; such a candidate is no adversary of Gremlins. As far as I am concerned, if in fact the
Gremlins can pull off this Constitutional switch at the impending
Constitutional Convention, then they fully deserve the avalanche of benefits
such a juristic instrument will generate for them. I admire victors of battles for their tactical SAVIOR FAIRE, even
though I may not be sympathetic with their doctrines or objectives. =============================================================[266] And
Gremlins are not about to let a Constitutional Convention come and go in the
United States without putting up a good fight.
[267] [267]============================================================= "In
connection with the attack on the United States, the Lord told the Prophet
Joseph Smith [that] there would be an attempt to overthrow the country by
destroying the Constitution. Joseph
Smith predicted that the time would come when the Constitution would hang as it
were by a thread, and at that time... the Elders of Israel, widely spread over
the nation, will, at the crucial time... [participate by providing] the
necessary balance of strength to save the institutions of Constitutional
Government. Now is the time to get
ready." - Ezra
Taft Benson in CONFERENCE REPORTS, page 70 (October, 1961). =============================================================[267] If you
want to get a good preview and feel for the class of new Constitution that such
a convention would produce, just examine the caliber of Presidents elected in
recent history. [268] [268]============================================================= If you
are unaware of the interest certain Gremlins have towards using that impending
Convention for their own proprietary purposes, then consider these words from
our Gremlin friend EXTRAORDINAIRE, Zbigniew Brzezinski: "The approaching two hundredth
anniversary of the Declaration of Independence could justify the call for a
national constitutional convention to reexamine the nation's formal
institutional framework. Either 1976 or
1987 -- the two hundredth anniversary of the Constitution -- could serve as a
target date for culminating a national dialogue on the relevance of existing
arrangements, the workings of the representative process, and the desirability
of imitating the various European regionalization reforms and of streamlining
the administrative structure. More
important still, either date would provide a suitable occasion for redefining
the meaning of modern democracy -- a task admittedly challenging but not
necessarily more so than when it was undertaken by the founding fathers -- and
for setting ambitious and concrete social goals." -Gremlin Zbigniew Brzezinski in BETWEEN TWO AGES:AMERICA'S ROLE IN THE TECHNETRONIC AGE, at 258 [Viking Press, New York City (1970)]. Those "social goals" that Brzezinski wants involve a NEW ECONOMIC ORDER which Brzezinski openly admits would seriously threaten "the traditional American values of individualism, free enterprise, the work ethic, and efficiency." -- but pesky little anachronisms like those are nuisances today, and his employer David Rockefeller has no room for nuisances. What David decrees is what's important, and David has decreed that Corporate Socialism is important. |
Specialty Areas
| NOTICE: The information on this page was brought to you by people who paid this website forward so that someone such as you might also profit by having access to it. If you care to do so also please feel encouraged to KEEP THIS SITE GOING by making a donation today. Thank you. | 
|