textfiles-politics/conspiracyTextFilesRegEx/incon003.txt

<conspiracyFile>I N V I S I B L E C O N T R A C T S
George Mercier
BANK ACCOUNTS
[Pages 131-193]
[Certain conventions have been used in converting INVISIBLE CONTRACTS to an
electronic medium. For an explanation of the conventions used, please download
the file INCONHLP.ZIP for further illumination. Other background information as
well is contained in INCONHLP.ZIP. It is advisable to EXIT this file right now
and read the contents of INCONHLP.ZIP before proceeding with your study of this
file.]
Some years preceding his multiple prosecutions in 1984, Mr. Condo went down to
a bank, and initiated an Equity relationship with that corporation and the
King. Yes, Commercial contracts in effect with banks are invisible juristic
contracts in effect with the King. In the Armen Condo Letter, I mentioned that
banks are in a special Status with the King, and likewise so are the individual
people who experience profit and gain from any Commercial contract they enter
into with a bank. This relational effect of doing business in King's Commerce
is pronounced quite clearly in the INSTRUMENTALITY DOCTRINE the Supreme Court
initiated publicly with DAVIS VS. ELMIRA SAVINGS:
"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]<div> 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.
<div>[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]<div> BLACK'S LAW
DICTIONARY, under the "Instrumentality Rule [case cites deleted].
<div>[171]
Now think what happens if the King is substituted for the parent corporation,
and your local bank is substituted for the subsidiary corporation. Under the
Instrumentality Doctrine, the local bank as a Person and a legal entity fades
away in significance as if it was transparent, and the King and the Secretary
of the Treasury then appear as the real contracting Persons you are entering
into Commercial agreements with. Are you beginning to see the legal
significance of this Doctrine? Are you beginning to appreciate the deeper
meanings of the bank account in that it is the King that you are really
contracting into Commerce with, and the bank is just the King's local agent?
That bank is literally the private personal property of the King. Entrepreneurs
who go out and capitalize a new bank from scratch do not own that bank. The
bank is owned by the King who created the corporation, and his Comptroller of
the Currency later issued out a banking charter to; and the individual
shareholders only hold an equitable interest in the bank's operations. [172]
[172]<div> "The
corporation is the legal owner of all of the property of the bank, real and
personal; and within the powers conferred upon it by the charter, and for the
purposes for which it was created, can deal with the corporate property as
absolutely as a private individual can deal with his own. This is familiar law,
and will be found in every work that may be opened in the subject of
corporations. A striking exemplification may be seen in the case of THE QUEEN
VS. ARMOUND, 9 Ad. &amp; Ell. N.S. 806. The question related to the registry of a
ship owned by a corporation. Lord Denman observed:
"It appears to me that the British corporation is, as such, the sole
owner of the ship. The individual members to the corporation are no doubt
interested in one sense in the property of the corporation, as they may derive
individual benefits from its increase, or loss from its decrease; but in no
legal sense are the individual members the owners."
-	THE BANK TAX CASES, 70 U.S. 573, at 584 (1865).
<div>[172]
The shareholders are only entitled to a limited withdrawal of some of the
bank's net earnings, under some limited circumstances. [173]
[173]<div> "The
interest of the shareholder entitles him to participate in the net profits
earned by the bank in the employment of its capital, during the existence of
its charter, in proportion to the number of his shares; and, upon its
dissolution or termination, to his proportion of the property that may remain
of the corporation after the payment of its debts."
-	THE BANK TAX CASES, id., at 584.
<div>[173]
Many incarcerated Protestors were unaware of the existence of the Commercial
contract that they were into, and so having the strong political views that
they do, their political feelings, skewing off on a defiant tangent, retained
the upper hand over their better judgment -- an inquisitive judgment that would
be searching for answers to questions. So although the Protestors was at one
time unaware of the existence of a contract being in effect, the King was very
much aware, and so the Protestor's defiant behavior is increasingly improvident
when viewed from the perspective that the Commercial contract was written to
strongly favor the King, and is interstitially dispersed throughout with penal
clauses IN ESSE for no more than mere administrative negligence and default,
and any outs that exist for persons in default are the unintended default
technical errors that the King's LEX statutes can correct at the discretion of
the Congress.
Today, great Tax Protesting Patriots like Condo, Schiff, and Saussey -- who
have established themselves in forward political positions -- have the strong
advantage of learning in advance the single most important fundamental starting
point in this Life; a starting point that most other folks won't even know of
until it is too late; a starting point that bifurcates the Law of Judgment into
two great subdivisions; Tort and Contract. Unknown to the world at large,
Heavenly Father has invisible Celestial Contracts operating on us all, just
like the King had multiple layers of Commercial and invisible political
contracts operating on Schiff, Condo, and Saussey (I will discuss those layers
later on). Maybe I am missing something somewhere, but I wish someone would
explain to me the prudence of Armen Condo's MODUS OPERANDI, as I cannot find
any; when presented with such valuable information (that invisible contracts
were actually in effect) Armen Condo summarily rebuffed that information
without any inquiry being made into its authenticity. I had told Armen
something he did not want to hear in his non-teachable state of mind; and in
ways similar to those invisible juristic contracts the King has on us that so
few people know much about, likewise our previous existence First Estate
Contracts with Father cast a regulatory contract jurisdiction over us all, and
all contract jurisdictions always call for our being self damaged by our own
mere neglectful technical default, nonchalant indifference swirling in carefree
insouciance, and miscellaneous compliance deflection Tort Law rationalizations:
"... yea, I lived with her for a while -- she was NICE, but there was
no damages nowhere and everyone consented -- so Father can't hold that against
me."
And just as Schiff, Condo, and Saussey were given unpleasant advance
introductions into what a contract Star Chamber is all about, so too will the
Last Day be a Contract Star Chamber -- the worst imaginable to those who have
used Tort Law behavioral defense arguments down here, as a well sculptured
slice of meat was repetitively bewitched into an elevated state of enchantment
("Gee, I didn't damage anyone"). [174]
[174]<div> Not that
Father is throwing us all into a LAKE OF FIRE AND BRIMSTONE to scorch us
thoroughly (Heathens really get a good kick out of that foolish idea of being
roasted in a scorcher by a revengeful god for a few little impish smatterings);
but the Last Day Judgement will actually be the WORSE IMAGINABLE because of
knowledge we will then posses of the magnitude of the lost benefits involved,
and how stupid it was to lose it down here over some interesting feminine
musculature, and other inappropriate adventurism into peripheral areas that are
defined as being illicit by First Estate Covenants, but are not really illicit
practically due to the omission of damages. The LAKE OF FIRE AND BRIMSTONE
analogy that the Prophets of old were referring to is their characterization of
this state of mental anguish.
<div>[174]
But the Last Day will also be transparent for those who entered into, and were
successfully tried under, Father's NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT; for these, the
Last Day will be a smooth procedural formality, nothing that should be of any
impending concern. [175]
[175]<div> The NEW AND
EVERLASTING COVENANT has been of particular interest with all of our Patriarchs
and Prophets of old, right back down the line, clear back to Adam: Question:
What is this NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT? Answer: Without referring to
anyone's commentary or explanation, the name of this particular Celestial
Covenant reveals a slice of history by itself, as the words NEW AND EVERLASTING
possibly imply that other Covenants exist that might be just the opposite: OLD
AND TEMPORARY. Are there in fact such Covenants floating around? Yes, there
are, but they are invisible; Father extracted them out of us in the First
Estate before we came down here, and by their nature those temporary First
Estate Covenants were designed to be replaced with NEW AND EVERLASTING
COVENANTS, Covenants that would never again be replaced, Covenants that are
EVERLASTING. The anonymous author who once wrote a Letter now known as HEBREWS
in the New Testament, once had a few words to say about OLD Covenants and NEW
Covenants, average Covenants and better Covenants, FIRST Covenants and SECOND
Covenants:
"... now he hath obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also
he is the mediator of a better Covenant, which was established upon better
promises. For if that FIRST COVENANT HAD BEEN FAULTLESS, THEN SHOULD NO PLACE
HAVE BEEN SOUGHT FOR THE SECOND [Covenant]. For finding fault with them, he
saith, 'Behold, the days come,' saith the Lord, 'when I will make a NEW
Covenant with the House of Israel, and with the House of Judah.' ... In that he
saith, 'A NEW Covenant,' he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth
and waxeth old is ready to varnish away."
-	HEBREWS 8:6, et seq. The next chapter in HEBREWS talks about the HOLY
OF HOLIES, Temples, the ARK OF THE COVENANT, and First and Second Covenants,
which is advanced material I will talk about in another Letter. I do not know
who wrote this LETTER TO THE HEBREWS; within its content the text contains
little information about either its author, its original readers and their
circumstances, its date, its overt purpose, or its theological background.
HEBREWS commences immediately by laying on the heavy stuff, while the greetings
appear at the end. Even its literary form is somewhat mysterious in the sense
that by probing into dimensionally deep Christian doctrines, the left the other
Commentators behind him biting the dust; words and phrases appearing in HEBREWS
appear no where else [for example, the phrase JESUS, THE MEDIATOR OF THE NEW
COVENANT -- (see 12:24, 9:15, and 8:6) -- does not appear anywhere else in
either the Old or New Testaments]. Martin Luther once made the suggestion that
Apollos of Alexandria was the writer [APOLLOS is described in ACTS 18:24-28 as
being a caliber of a fellow who would and could write HEBREWS]. Suffice it to
say that the doctrinal ideas and ecclesiastical commentary presented in HEBREWS
will feel very comfortable to folks today after they have first been steeped in
the DOCTRINES OF THE NEW COVENANT for a while, as both originated from the same
Source (the significance of HEBREWS will be appreciated once you have an
enlarged basis of factual knowledge on the successive organic nature of
Covenants serving their purpose and then replacing previous Covenants, and in
turn being replaced by still other Covenants). While calling itself a WORD OF
EXHORTATION [13:22], the LETTER TO THE HEBREWS contains some of the most
eloquent writings and sermons in the New Testament, and whoever its author was,
had to be a gifted Christian thinker who probed into the deeper doctrines of
Christianity where few others did. I will have more to say about HEBREWS in
some other Letter. ... I said that this NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT has been a
source of interest to all of the great Patriarchs back down the line -- and I
meant what I said -- so here are the citations:
"... and I will look upon it, that I may remember the EVERLASTING
COVENANT between God and every living creature..."
-	GENESIS 6:18
"... I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy Seed
[SEED meaning offspring] after thee in their generation for an EVERLASTING
COVENANT, to be a God upon thee, and to thy Seed after thee."
-	GENESIS 17:7
"... my Covenant shall be in your flesh for an EVERLASTING COVENANT."
-	GENESIS 17:13
"And God said 'Sarah, thy wife, shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou
shalt call his name Isaac: And I will establish my Covenant with him for an
EVERLASTING COVENANT, and with his Seed after him."
-	GENESIS 17:19
"Every Sabbath he shall set it in order before the Lord continually,
being taken from the children of Israel by an EVERLASTING COVENANT."
-	LEVITICUS 24:8
"And he shall have it, and his Seed after him, even the Covenant of an
EVERLASTING PRIESTHOOD..."
-	NUMBERS 25:13
"Although my house be not so with God, yet he hath made with me an
EVERLASTING COVENANT, ordered in all things, and sure: For this is all my
Salvation, and all my desire..."
-	II SAMUEL 23:5
"He is the Lord our God; His Judgements are in all the Earth; be
mindful always of His Covenant; the word which He commanded to a thousand
generations; even of the Covenant He made with Abraham, and of his Oath unto
Isaac; and hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a Law, and to Israel for an
EVERLASTING COVENANT..."
-	I CHRONICLES 16:14 et seq.
"He is the Lord our God; His Judgments are in all the Earth; He hath
remembered His Covenant for ever; the word which He commanded to a thousand
generations; which Covenant He made with Abraham, and his Oath unto Isaac; and
confirmed the same to Jacob for a Law, and to Israel for an EVERLASTING
COVENANT..."
-	PSALM 105:7 et seq.
"... the Earth is also defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because
they have transgressed the Laws, changed the Ordinance, broken the EVERLASTING
COVENANT."
-	ISAIAH 55:3
"... everlasting joy shall be unto them.. and I will direct their work
in Truth, and I will make an EVERLASTING COVENANT with them."
-	ISAIAH 61:8 et seq.
"... and I will make an EVERLASTING COVENANT with them..."
-	JEREMIAH 32:40
"... nevertheless, I will remember my Covenant with thee in the days of
thy youth, and I will establish unto thee an EVERLASTING COVENANT."
-	EZEKIEL 16:60
"Moreover, I will make a Covenant of peace with them; it shall be an
EVERLASTING COVENANT with them; and I will place them, and multiply them..."
-	EZEKIEL 37:26
"... now the God of peace... that great shepard of the sheep, through
the blood of the EVERLASTING COVENANT."
-	HEBREWS 13:20
"For they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine
EVERLASTING COVENANT..."
-	DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS 1:15
"Wherefore, I, the Lord... gave commandments to others, that they
should proclaim these things unto the world... that mine EVERLASTING COVENANT
might be established."
-	DOCTRINE &amp; COVENANTS 1:17 et seq.
"Behold, I say unto you that all old Covenants have I caused to be done
away with in this things; and this is a NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT, even that
which was from the beginning."
-	DOCTRINE &amp; COVENANTS 22:1
"Wherefore I say unto you that I have sent unto you mine EVERLASTING
COVENANTS, even that which was from the beginning."
-	DOCTRINE &amp; COVENANTS 49:9
"Verily I say unto you, blessed are you for receiving mine EVERLASTING
COVENANT... sent forth unto the children of men, that they might have life and
be made partakers of the glories which are to be revealed in the last days, as
it was written by the Prophets and Apostles in days of old."
-	DOCTRINE &amp; COVENANTS 66:2
"... in the telestial world... [there will be goofs;]... these are they
who say they are some of one and some of another -- some of Christ and some of
John, and some of Moses, and some of Elias, and some of Esaisis, and some of
Isaiah, and some of Enoch [by being of Moses, of John, of Jack, of Pete, of
Harry, of Bob, of Ted -- they are spiritually disorganized in that they are OF
anyone except the right One]; but received not the Gospel, neither the
testimony of Jesus, neither the Prophets ["... it's all the same God -- I just
don't need me none of that Contract stuff"], neither the EVERLASTING COVENANT."
-	DOCTRINE &amp; COVENANTS 76:98 et seq.
"Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, to prepare and organize
yourselves by a bond or EVERLASTING COVENANT that cannot be broken."
-	DOCTRINE &amp; COVENANTS 78:11
"He that is appointed to be president, or teacher,... let him offer
himself in prayer upon his knees before God, in token or remembrance of the
EVERLASTING COVENANT."
-	DOCTRINE &amp; COVENANTS 88:128 et seq.
"I salute you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, in token or
remembrance of the EVERLASTING COVENANT, in which Covenant I receive you to
fellowship, in a determination that is fixed, immovable, and unchangeable, to
be your friend and brother through the grace of God in the bonds of love, to
wait in all the commandments of God blameless, in thanksgiving, forever and
ever."
-	DOCTRINE &amp; COVENANTS 88:133
"When men are called unto mine Everlasting Gospel, and Covenant with an
EVERLASTING COVENANT, they are accounted as the salt of the Earth and the savor
of men..."
-	DOCTRINE &amp; COVENANTS 101:39
"For behold, I reveal unto you a NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT, it was
instituted for the fullness of my Glory, and he that receiveth a fullness
thereof must and shall abide the Law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord
God. [Yes, those are pretty strong consequences; but where there are high
powered benefits, there will always be found correlative high powered
consequences]."
-	DOCTRINE &amp; COVENANTS 132:6
"... verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is
my Law, and by the NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT... ye shall inherit thrones,
kingdoms, principalities, and powers dominions, all heights and depths... they
shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to the exaltation
and Glory in all things... and the angels are subject unto them."
-	DOCTRINE &amp; COVENANTS 132:19
<div>[175]
To Heathens and agnostics, who spent their time playing with their own
salvation down here by fighting and resisting what they will then view as
something as simple as giving Father what he wanted, there will be no
opportunity then to throw multiple exploratory defense lines at Father by going
through multiple judgements, but much to our advantage we can have all the
prosecutions thrown at us that we want down here, to repetitively argue our
defense lines before Judges over and over again; and it is for this reason that
incarcerated Protestors will one day look back and be ever grateful that the
consequential significance of being in mere technical default on invisible
contracts was driven into them, under such strong circumstances. [176]
[176]<div> "The object
of our earthly existence is that we may have a fullness of joy, and that we may
become the sons and daughters of God, in the fullest sense of the word, being
heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ, to be kings and priests unto
God, to inherit glory, dominion, exaltation, thrones, and every power and
attribute developed and possessed by our Heavenly Father. This is the object of
our being on this Earth. In order to obtain unto this exalted position, it is
necessary that we go through this mortal experience, or probation, by which we
may prove ourselves worthy, through the aid of our elder brother Jesus."
-	Joseph F. Smith, in a Funeral Service delivered over the daughter of
Daniel H. Wells, on April 11, 1878; 19 JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES 258, at 259
[London (1878)].
<div>[176]
Yes, today, Condo, Schiff, and Saussey are either in a cage, or close to being
thrown into one, because of their default in juristic contracts; tomorrow -
after they have OPENED THEIR EYES, they will go forth and inherit, create, and
preside over Thrones, Dominions, and WORLDS WITHOUT END, also by Contract.
Having known the bitter Agony, they can cleave to the Celestial Ecstasy; in
both cases, contracts were the initiating catalytic instrumentality.
This banking INSTRUMENTALITY DOCTRINE is a pretty strong relational status for
the Judiciary to take cognizance of, so when we probe back down the line to
uncover why chartered banks are in such a status, we should not be too
surprised to uncover our old friend: A contract. [177]
[177]<div> "A charter
is certainly in form and substance a contract; it is a grant of powers, rights,
and privileges;
"... A charter to a bank... is certainly a contract, founded on
valuable consideration."
-	Joseph Story, in III COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION, at page 258
(Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1833). This Joseph Story, who I will be quoting from
throughout this Letter, was born in Marblehead, Massachusetts in September of
1779. He entered Harvard College and graduated in 1798. When leaving Cambridge,
he immediately entered into the study of Law in the office of Mr. Samuel
Sewall, then an advocate at the Essex bar. In 1801, Joseph Story was admitted
to the Massachusetts bar. He was elected to the Massachusetts Commonwealth
Legislature in 1805, and was then elected to the Congress in 1808, and was soon
Speaker of the House of Representatives. In 1810 he argued the great Georgia
case FLETCHER VS. PECK, which involved contracts, before the Supreme Court. He
edited a book called CHITTY ON BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMISSORY NOTES, and
others. On November 18, 1811, Joseph Story was commissioned to be an Associate
Justice of the United States Supreme Court to fill the vacancy left by Mr.
Justice Cushing. He was then 32 years of age, the youngest man ever to be
called to such a position in either England or America, except for Justice
Buller. While on the Supreme Court, Joseph Story wrestled down questions on
Admiralty and Maritime regarding the rights and duties of ship owners,
insurance companies, and mariners. He was a major architect of, and wrote
extensively about, Patents and their role in English history [see THE INFLUENCE
OF MR. JUSTICE STORY ON AMERICAN PATENT LAW by Frank Prager in 5 American
Journal of Legal History, at 254 (January, 1961)]. He created a doctrine to
settle frictional disputes between the Federal-State layers of Government,
called the COMITY DOCTRINE, which is still quoted by the Supreme Court down to
the present day [see JOSEPH STORY'S CONTRIBUTION TO AMERICAN CONFLICTS LAW: A
COMMENT by Kurt Naddleman in 5 American Journal of Legal History, at 230
(January, 1961)]. And he also dealt with the banditry of PRIZE JURISDICTION,
which was still in vogue. Back at a time when banking in the United States was
operating under a LAISSEZ-FAIRE relational status to Government, Joseph Story
wrote that banking affects a public interest [very significant words], and that
banking involves that most ancient prerogative of national Sovereignty, THE
MONEY POWER, which our Framers never restrained or abated in the Charter they
created for our King. &gt;namely, the U.S. Constitution&lt; [See JUSTICE STORY AND
THE AMERICAN LAW OF BANKING by Gerald Dunne, in 5 American Journal of Legal
History, at 205 (January, 1961)]; and this is a dominant theme in American
Jurisprudence remaining in effect down to the present day with George Mercier
enlarging on what Joseph Story started. While studying his COMMENTARIES ON THE
CONSTITUTION, I have been able to uncover only a few of Justice Story's
opinions and legal statements that were later reversed or otherwise toned down
in subsequent Federal rulings, and none of the reversals were really on-point
factual settings. Down to the present day in 1985, many of Joseph Story's
statements of Law that he applied to the hypothetical factual scenarios which
he created in 1833 for his COMMENTARIES were actually made with great
foresight, as they would later be coming to pass long after he returned Home in
1845. [For detailed biographies on all of the early Supreme Court Justices, see
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES by Hampton Carson [John Huber Company,
Philadelphia (1891)]; and also worthwhile is Morgan David's JUSTICE JOSEPH
STORY: A STUDY OF THE LEGAL PHILOSOPHY OF A JEFFERSONIAN JUDGE in 18
Vanderbuilt Law Review, at 643 (March, 1965).
<div>[177]
Originally applicable only to nationally chartered banks, the INSTRUMENTALITY
DOCTRINE has since been expanded under the enlarging regulatory penumbra of the
Federal Reserve Act of 1913 to include all state and Federally chartered member
banks of the Fed. During the Depression, banks who became members of the FDIC
and FSLIC insurance programs were deemed Instrumentalities, and this doctrine
is now applied in the United States to include all financial institutions where
there is any Federal regulatory interest in them. This now includes stock
brokerage houses, credit unions, insurance companies, and pension funds. (For
example, people acquiring a Merrill Lynch Cash Management Account, which is a
negotiable withdrawal instrument, are in the same Juristic Personality Status
(in King's Commerce) with a Merrill Lynch checking account that they are with a
checking account from any conventional depository banking institution, such as
Manufacturer's Hanover.) When a person initiates such a bank account
relationship with the King, an examination of Fourth Amendment Search and
Seizure cases relating to account records that banks send to depositors reveals
that the Federal appellate judiciary considers the Fourth Amendment to be
non-applicable to Seized bank account records. [178]
[178]<div> Exemplary
perhaps would be two EXCLUSIONARY RULE based cases from the Supreme Court:
-	UNITED STATES VS. MILLER, 425 U.S. 435 (1976). A criminally accused
person made a pre-Trial Motion to Suppress of copies of checks and other bank
records which federal agents had gotten a hold of. HELD: That the Motion to
Suppress was properly denied since the accused person possessed no Fourth
Amendment interest that could be vindicated by a challenge to the bank
accounts; and any infirmities or deficiencies in the bank account record
acquisition process, by way of a defective Subpoena or Search Warrant, were
irrelevant arguments since Subpoenas and Search Warrants were unnecessary
document acquisition tools to begin with; those bank account records are the
property of the Government, and they are available to the Government under
administrative devices (meaning an investigator's phone call or letter
inquiry); and
-	UNITED STATES VS. PAYNER, 447 U.S. 727 (1979). A criminal defendant
had been charged with falsifying his income tax return by denying that he held
a foreign bank account. Federal agents in Florida had broken into an apartment
and then surreptitiously copied bank records that a bank manager from the
Bahamas had brought with him on a trip, under circumstances that you or I would
be incarcerated for. Later on, detective work back at the office uncovered the
fact that the poor defendant did indeed maintain foreign bank accounts, so the
Government then threw a criminal prosecution at the fellow caught in the act of
defilement. Since the Government had violated the Constitutional rights of a
third party [the bank manager from the Bahamas], and not the criminally
accused, the Fourth Amendment offered no protection to the Defendant, since the
Defendant had no rights violated. State in other words, perhaps more
explicitly, emphasizing the consequences of maintaining bank account records:
When Government obtains your bank account records, regardless of how, through
whom, when, or under any circumstances, then arguing Fourth Amendment rights
defensively will likely not produce any sympathy from Federal Appellate Forums.
<div>[178]
In those cases, the Supreme Court will talk about how Courts cannot exclude
evidence under the Fourth Amendment unless that Court finds that an unlawful
Search or Seizure violated the defendant's own Constitutional rights. But that
the Constitutional rights of criminal defendants, who are being hanged with
their own bank account statements, are violated only when the Search and
Seizure conduct violated the defendant's own legitimate expectation of privacy,
rather than that of a third party. [179]
[179]<div> Paraphrased
from UNITED STATES VS. PAYNER, id., at 731.
<div>[179]
Since the "zone of privacy" inherent in the Papers Clause of the Fourth
Amendment does not facially protect information you have deposited into the
hands of third parties, like banking institutions, [180]
[180]<div> "... no
interest legitimately protected by the Fourth Amendment is implicated by
governmental investigative activities unless there is an intrusion into a zone
of privacy, into 'the security a man relies upon when he places himself or his
property within a constitutionally protected area.'"
-	HOFFA VS. UNITED STATES, 385 U.S. 293, at 301 (1966).
<div>[180]
Federal Courts find it unnecessary to probe any deeper and explicitly tell you
the real underlying reason why bank accounts fall outside the protective
penumbra of the Fourth Amendment; Because a Commercial contract is in effect,
and the Bill of Rights cannot be held to interfere with or obstruct the
contemporary execution of Commercial contracts, for either party (and properly
so). But wait, as those Supreme Court cases dealt with bank accounts Seized
from a bank itself, and banks as regulated Commercial establishments have no
Fourth Amendment rights whatever. So there are no privacy rights in any
information you deposit with those banks, and this remains true whether or not
there was a Commercial contract in effect or not. Hmmm. But what if those bank
account records were Seized from a person's home where the Fourth Amendment
does apply? Now what? The Fourth Amendment still does not apply, and properly
so. [181]
[181]<div> "Respondent
[bank account holder] urges that he has a Fourth Amendment interest in the
records kept by banks because they are merely copies of personal records that
were made available to the banks for a limited purpose and in which he has a
reasonable expectation of privacy... Even if we direct our attention to the
original checks and deposit slips [that the bank account holder kept in his
home], rather than to the microfilm copies actually viewed and obtained by
means of a subpoena, we perceive no legitimate 'expectation of privacy' in
their contents. The checks are not confidential communications but negotiable
instruments to be used in commercial transactions. The lack of ANY legitimate
expectation of privacy concerning the information kept in bank records was
assumed by Congress in enacting the BANK SECRECY ACT, the express purpose of
which is to require records to be maintained because they 'HAVE A HIGH DEGREE
OF USEFULNESS IN CRIMINAL, TAX, AND REGULATORY INVESTIGATIONS AND PROCEEDINGS'
[12 U.S.C. Section 1829b(a)(1)]."
-	UNITED STATES VS. MILLER, 425 U.S. 435, at 442 (1976) The ITALICS
were added here to underscore the extreme significance of those statements; the
Law in this FOURTH AMENDMENT/BANK ACCOUNT area is well settled: COMMERCIAL
contracts are in effect, and challenging it is improvident. Notice how the
Congress is playing cutesy by calling a sequential family of statutes the BANK
SECRECY ACT, freely conveying the initially impressive image that these
statutes protect or otherwise enhance the public's secrecy in banking accounts
and related records -- but in reality the BANK SECRECY ACT is a high-powered
statutory device, as the Supreme Court here exemplifies, to promote the
usefulness of those bank records in criminal prosecutions that the Government
will one day be throwing at you. Among other things, this Act empowers the
Secretary of the Treasury to adopt broad regulations compelling banks to record
their customer's transactions and requiring that the banks, as well as private
persons using banking services, also report a broad range of financial
transactions TO THE GOVERNMENT [now where is the "Secrecy"?] Pursuant to this
grant of statutory jurisdiction, the Treasury Secretary then turned around and
created his own multiplying slice of LEX by administrative promulgations
directing that each bank report each and every single deposit, withdrawal, and
transfer that took place in domestic transactions of $10000 or more [see 31
CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS Section 103.22].
<div>[181]
This is what is really meant when the bank account evidence taken from a
patently unlawful residential Search and Seizure in a person's home is deemed
admissible, even though the Fourth Amendment's Exclusionary Rule would
otherwise attach if the property that was seized did not belong to the King
(guns, cocaine, etc.). Federal Judges will skew their Seizure of bank accounts
annulment justifications off to the side and talk about the "special facts in
this case" when annulling Fourth Amendment rights on bank account records
unlawfully Seized from a residence. [182]
[182]<div> Banking
records seized from residences merely contain the same information that other
documents located in public places contain; and so although those seized
records are "private papers," all the Government has to do is go down to the
bank [now that they know which bank to go to, and which account to sift
through], obtain duplicate copies of banking records, and then throw those
copies that were obtained directly from banks at Defendants:
"On their face, the documents [bank accounts] subpoenaed here are not
respondent's 'private papers.' Unlike claimant in BOYD VS. UNITED STATES [116
U.S. 616 (1886)], respondent [bank account holder] can assert neither ownership
nor possession. Instead, these are the business records of banks.
-	UNITED STATES VS. MILLER, 425 U.S. 435, at 440 (1976).
<div>[182]
And now we are finally getting down to the one real reason why the Bill of
Rights in general, and the Fourth Amendment, in particular, means absolutely
nothing when a bank account is involved with a contested Search and Seizure;
this special reason is never talked about by law schools; and this reason is
not to be found anywhere in any law book in any library that I am acquainted
with: But the reason is, as stated, because a Commercial contract with the King
is in effect, and so as a point of beginning, the Bill of Rights is irrelevant
from the scratch, and properly so; but you will never hear that explicit
explanation from anyone else, other than George Mercier. Never in any Court
Opinion is there any blunt discussion of Commercial contracts being in effect;
rather, Judges will continue to focus distracting attention and discussions
around the Fourth Amendment, creating the potential image, in some peripheral
factual setting cases, that the Fourth Amendment is the center of gravity here,
rather than the Commercial contract itself. Yet it is very proper and correct
that the Bill of Rights should not be allowed to interfere with, obstruct,
intervene, or otherwise restrain the execution or operation of contemporary
Commercial contracts -- for either party; but getting an official admission
like that from a Federal Judge will result in a can of worms being opened up
(as they perceive it), a can of worms they don't want to talk about and deal
with in the future. [183]
[183]<div> As I
mentioned in the Armen Condo Letter, Federal Judges have been asked not to let
the "cat out of the bag" by discussion the special and very quiet relationship
between bank accounts and Income Tax statute liability (although bank accounts
are not exclusive Equity Jurisdiction attachment instruments, they are
air-tight instruments of CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE whenever the King has a burden of
proving the defendant's entrance into Interstate Commerce).
<div>[183]
Additionally, but to a lesser extent, those bank account records are the
private personal property of the King, and so it is irrational that the King
cannot reclaim his own property whenever he feels like it, all pursuant to the
terms of the bank account contract. [184]
[184]<div> "The
depositor takes the risk, in revealing his affairs to another, that the
information will be conveyed by that person to the Government... This Court has
held repeatedly that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of
information revealed to a third party and conveyed by [the third party] to
Government authorities, even if the information is revealed on the assumption
that it will be used only for a limited purpose and the confidence placed in
the third party will not be betrayed."
-	UNITED STATES VS. MILLER, 425 U.S. 435, at 443 (1976). If you don't
know what contract I am referring to that gives the King the right to simply
reclaim his own property, then ask a bank for a copy of their bank rules that
all depositors and borrowers have agreed to be bound by. Under normal
circumstances, banks are reluctant to give depositors copies of Bank Rules
those depositors have agreed to be bound by. Sounds irrational, doesn't it?
Withholding the terms of contracts those depositors have just taken upon
themselves criminal compliance liability for? Yet, numerous attempts by people
associated with me have attempted to obtain a copy of these Bank Rules, and all
attempts resulted in the banking officer clamming up tight, deflecting
attention over to the "irregular and unusual" nature of the request, and then
telling the requesting person to go see MR. SO AND SO at the Federal Reserve
Board, who in turn also clammed up tight. So much for domestic American bank
accounts. <div>[184]
Those are the real reasons why the Fourth and Fifth Amendments are irrelevant
in bank account Administrative Seizures and in judicial prosecutions
evidentiarily based on bank accounts. Within the same line of Fourth Amendment
cases, those Federal Judges will also refer to bank accounts as being
interstate merchant and Commercial instruments, but never is there any
discussion to be found anywhere on the special Equity Relationship in effect
between Persons entering into such Commercial contracts, and the King.
Some folks have taken the position that if they entered into Equity with the
King by signing a bank account card under Objection on the grounds of
necessity, that Objection somehow will vitiate future liability; but there is
an inherent defect in that reasoning. Unlike signing Driver's License
applications under Objection and Notice of Duress to avoid incarceration, the
Supreme Court has ruled that the RIGHT TO TRAVEL is a Substantive and
Fundamental Right that cannot be infringed upon, absent very strong and
compelling state interests; and there are state statutes which criminalize the
act of an unlicensed driver operating a motor vehicle down the road. Taking
that Driver's License scenario as a model and applying it to justify possessing
bank accounts just does not cut it. Bank accounts are not entered into to avoid
incarceration, and banking is not a Substantive Right, and direct personal
financial profit and gain enrichment is experienced when possessing bank
accounts that is without parallel with a Driver's License. So, all factors
considered, the likelihood of escaping an Excise Tax liability by arguing bank
account possession by necessity, is remote. This remains true even though the
California Supreme Court ruled once that:
"For all practical purposes, the disclosure by individuals or business
firms of their financial affairs to a bank is not entirely volitional, since it
is impossible to participate in the economic life of contemporary society
without maintaining a bank account. In the course of such dealings, a depositor
reveals many aspects of his personal affairs, opinions, habits and
associations. Indeed, the totality of bank records provides a virtual current
biography." [185]
[185]<div> BURROWS VS.
SUPERIOR COURT, 13 Cal 3rd 238, at 247 (1974).
<div>[185]
The California Supreme Court is not a Federal Tribunal, and statements to the
effect that bank accounts are necessary for practical economic survival, and
perhaps are not purely volitional [VOLITIONAL means freely choosing or will to
do so, as in making a decision], although an interesting perception of the
passing scene, will in no wise vitiate your legal liability to the adhesive
Federal taxation reciprocity expectations resident in Title 26. Notice how the
California Supreme Court did not say that possession of bank accounts under a
documented factual setting of economic survival annuls Title 26 liability. So
let's not read out of that state court what it does not say; and even if that
state court did state inferentially that possession by necessity annuls
expectation of reciprocity liability in areas of taxation, then the California
Supreme Court is still not a Federal Judicial Forum. Federal Judges are taught
and trained certain things in those Seminars of theirs, and that BENCH BOOK of
theirs makes the Government's position sound more than reasonable, and so as a
result, Federal Judges are collectively sensitive towards certain things [such
as the significance of a Commercial contract] that State Judges are indifferent
to.
This DAVIS VS. ELMIRA SAVINGS Instrumentality Doctrine occasionally surfaces in
Supreme Court rulings, by sometimes being lightly mentioned in passing in
OBITER DICTUM, such as in ANDERSON NATIONAL BANK VS. LUCKETT, [186]
[186]<div> 321 U.S.
233, at 252 (1943).
<div>[186]
and on other occasions, this Instrumentality Doctrine is bluntly reaffirmed by
the Supreme Court, as in MARQUETTE NATIONAL BANK VS. FIRST OF OMAHA. [187]
[187]<div> 439 U.S. 308
(1978). <div>[187]
But if the Law of King's Commerce is correctly understood, there is no need for
the Supreme Court to reaffirm anything, as the circulation of paper money,
notes, or the circulation of any juristic currency, even carrying intrinsic
value, in King's Commerce (as distinguished from privately minted coins and
notes), has always been the closed private domain of the King of England. And
it has been the exclusive domain of the King ever since paper money was first
printed and circulated by King Richard II to finance an offensive war against
France that Parliament declined to levy taxes to wage. [188]
[188]<div> Gremlins
have had a few words to say about the utterly heinous issuance of paper
currency:
"Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind,
none is so effectual as that which deludes them with paper money. It is the
most perfect expedient ever invented for fertilizing the rich man's fields by
the sweat of the poor man's brow. Ordinary tyranny, oppression, excessive
taxation, these bear lightly on the happiness of the community compared with
fraudulent currencies and the robberies committed by depreciated paper. Our own
history has recorded enough, and more than enough, of the demoralizing
tendency, the injustice and intolerable oppression on the virtuous and well
disposed, of a degraded paper currency, authorized by law, or in any way
countenanced by Government."
-	Gremlin Nelson W. Aldrich, United States Senator, at a New York City
dinner speech on October 15, 1913 (two months before his pet Federal Reserve
System was passed by the Congress to create the very conditions he fraudulently
represented to oppose, in IV PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
#1, at 38 [Columbia University, New York (1914)].
<div>[188]
So the circulation of paper money by Gremlins through the instrumentality of
kings, was born in tortious fraud intended to damage people, and was designed
to accomplish in the practical setting (the damages of taxation by Inflation)
what was not accomplished legally on the Floor of Parliament by common consent.
[189]
[189]<div> When the
United States Congress removed the last remaining attachment of paper Federal
Reserve notes to gold reserve requirements in 1968 -- the Gremlins were there.
From out of his nest on the 17th Floor of the Chase Manhattan Bank descended
one David Rockefeller on Congress, taking his jet and making his attack sortie
on Washington with Gremlin enscrewment in mind -- whose very appearance itself
at a Committee Hearing was designed to make an important Statement: That we
Gremlins now hold the upper hand in the United States, and our grand plans for
monetary enscrewment will no longer be restrained on account of some lingering
silly little anachronistic gold ratio requirements left over from another era.
This is the modern age with computers, Congress, and you just don't need to
concern yourself none with that old medieval stuff. See the "Statement of David
Rockefeller" in the GOLD COVER HEARINGS ["Hearings Before the Committee on
Banking and Commerce of the United States Senate"], at page 141, 90th Congress,
Second Session ["Repeal of Gold Reserve Requirement"] (January, 1968)].
<div>[189]
So paper money has been designed from the outset to damage people, and the
unnecessary circulation of paper money today in the United States carries along
with it identical underlying enscrewment objectives. [190]
[190]<div> The Legal
Tender Acts, enacted during the Civil War, were billed as a war measure:
"... 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 is wholly inadequate. The Government has
for many years used only gold and silver for this purpose... The business of
the Government and the business of the country require some substitute for
coin. We must therefore create a new [paper]... currency. We must therefore
create a public debt, establish a currency, and impose new taxes."
-	Speech by Representative John Crisfield of Maryland, favoring
enactment of the Legal Tender Statutes [CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE, 37th Congress, 2nd
Session, Appendix, page 43 et seq. (February 5, 1862)].
<div>[190]
Back in an era when the United States was the American Colonies, the Framers to
our Constitution never abated or restricted the King's standing right to issue
out his own money or to declare that someone else's money or notes are legal
and tender for those debts existing under the King's General Commerce
Jurisdiction; and neither did the Framers ever restrict the King's right to
delegate any or all of the circulating process to a third party (as arguments
in this area of FEDERAL RESERVE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY DUE TO LACK OF COINAGE
DELEGATION JURISDICTION are in error). The Supreme Court has ruled often that
the Constitution of the United States must be applied today in light of English
Common Law then in effect at the time the Declaration of Independence was
executed, and properly so. [191]
[191]<div>
-	UNITED STATES VS. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649, at 645 (1897);
-	VEAZIE BANK VS. FENNO, 75 U.S. 533 (1869);
-	LOCKE VS. NEW ORLEANS, 71 U.S. 172 (1866), etc.
<div>[191]
"... Congress possesses all of the powers which existed in the States
before the adaption of the National Constitution, and which have always existed
in the Parliament in England." [192]
[192]<div> GILMAN VS.
PHILADELPHIA, 70 U.S. 713, at 725 (1865).
<div>[192]
So let us briefly examine English Common Law and see just what type of monetary
powers the King of England had. Consider the following words from a landmark
case in 1604: [193]
[193]<div> I call this
a "landmark" case because it was later cited by the Supreme Court of the United
States in the LEGAL TENDER CASES, 79 U.S. 457, at 548 (1871).
<div>[193]
"as the king by his prerogative may make money of what matter and form
he pleaseth, and establish the standard of it, so may he change his money in
substance and impression, and enhance or debase the value of it, or entirely
decry and annul it...
"And so it is manifest, that the kings of England have always had and
exercised the prerogative of coining and changing the form, and when they
found it expedient of enhancing and debasing the value of money within their
dominions; and this prerogative is allowed and approved not only by the common
law, but also by the rules of the imperial law." [194]
[194]<div> CASE OF
MIXED MONEY, Sir John Davies Reporter, at page 48 (1604).
<div>[194]
And so if the King of England had the right to invoke Sovereignty Jurisdiction
to circulate debased currency, then so also does the Congress of the United
States now have similar Sovereignty Jurisdiction, absent an explicit and blunt
jurisdictional restraining mandate to the contrary in this charter, the
Constitution -- paper currency restrainment language which does not exist.
[195]
[195]<div> Yes, the
Congress can do whatever it feels like with issuing currency, as an attribute
of its sovereignty:
"Congress, as the legislature of a sovereign nation, being expressly
empowered by the constitution to lay and collect taxes, pay the debts, and
provide for a common defense... [and also] to charter national banks, and to
provide a national currency for the whole people in the form of coin, treasury
notes, and national bank bills, and [also has] the power to make the notes of
the Government a legal tender in payment of private debts being one of the
powers belonging to sovereignty in other civilized nations, and not expressly
withheld from Congress by the Constitution..."
-JULLIARD VS. GREENMAN, 110 U.S. 421, at 466 (1884).
<div>[195]
Nowhere in our Constitution did the Framers state that "no paper currency shall
issue out of Congress," or "circulating currency is required to physically
contain gold and silver," and Patriot arguments to the effect that Article I,
Section 10 constitutes such a restrainment are defective, as I will explain
later on. Nor did the Framers state that "monetary matters reside exclusively
within the Congress, and cannot be delegated..." Are you beginning to see what
happens when some agreement is reduced into writing? With the passage of time,
oral expectations in effect at the time the agreement was executed diminish
away into nothingness, and only the exact, literal content of the agreement, as
written, means anything. [196]
[196]<div> Earlier, I
mentioned that Contracts we enter into now down here with Heavenly Father
overrule and supersede our First Estate Contracts, and that the First Estate
Contracts then fade away in significance. The Principe of Law that this is
based on is called by business lawyers in Commerce as the MERGER DOCTRINE,
contracts that we enter into today overrule and extinguish contracts entered
into in a previous era; in other words, the most recent contract absorbs
previous contracts. The application of this MERGER DOCTRINE is found in many
settings. For example, in real estate transactions, just as the old prior oral
negotiations between a Seller and a Purchaser are washed out by the Deed [23 AM
JUR Deeds Section 261], so too do oral precontract negotiations loose their
identity and existence as those negotiations later unite in the confluence of
the written contract [PRICE VS. BLOCK, 124 F.2nd 738]. This MERGER DOCTRINE is
a correct Principle of Nature I touched on in the Armen Condo Letter [that
Commercial contracts we enter into today with the King overrule the
restrainments resident in the Constitution of 1787], and this Principle now
operates, and has operated, in all factual settings. The MERGER DOCTRINE
recognizes that there are different levels of importance or priorities in
NATURE, and what is done in the past is always of less significance than what
is done in the present (which is simply reason, logic and COMMON SENSE); so
lesser important contracts from out of the past, together with their lingering
oral expectations and the like, fade away in significance as they are MERGED
into contracts of greater importance:
"Whenever a greater Estate and a less [Estate] coincide and meet in one
and the same person, without any intermediate estate, the less is immediately
annihilated; or, in the law phrase, is said to be merged, that is, sunk or
drowned in the greater."
-	2 BLACKSTONE COMMENTARIES 177. When corporations are said to MERGE,
what actually happens is that the two independent corporations lose their
existence altogether as separate entities having separate assets, liabilities,
franchises, legal rights, and powers; and are totally absorbed into the new
single corporation [see MORRIS VS. INVESTMENT LIFE INSURANCE, 272 N.E.2nd 105,
at 108]. And since NATURE, so called, merely replicates the mind, will and
intention of its great Creator, the Principle of Nature that lawyers practicing
Commercial Law call the MERGER DOCTRINE, also applies to have our great
contemporary Celestial Contracts with Father overrule and wash out our lessor
previous existence First Estate Contracts. Yes, when you know the Law in one
setting, you know the Law in all settings, as nothing changes from one factual
setting to the next.
<div>[196]
Today when we enter into contracts with one another down here, as unforeseen
circumstances surface later on, regrets are always quietly expressed about how
this or that should have been originally included into the agreement. It was
that way with Moses and the Ten Commandments, it was that way with the United
States Constitution of 1787, and this attribute of Nature [of people enlarging
their basis of factual knowledge over time, and therefore also changing their
desires] remains in full force and effect down to the present day with
Commercial contracts. An honest assessment of the Framers would suggest that
they were unable to guard against all possible evils, since they simply did not
have, then, the exposure to the magnitude of evil that we have had thrown at us
today.
But as for currency, [197]
[197]<div> When words
have several different meanings, the word is said to be an ENTENTE. In Law, the
word CURRENCY is such an ENTENTE. Over a period of time, words change meaning
as new factual circumstances surface to alter the use or perspective of
something:
"The meaning of words changes. It is curious to note how many words
wholly lose their original or etymological meaning, and from usage and change
of circumstances acquire sometimes an opposite and often a different meaning...
The common legal word INDORSE, from the Latin IN, upon, and DORSUM, the back.
It used to be applied literally and strictly to a writing upon the BACK of a
paper. It is now well settled that a good instrument may be made on the FACE of
a bill or note."
-	PILMER VS. STATE BANK, 16 Iowa Reporter 321, at 329 (1864). And on
one hand, speaking like an economist, CURRENCY has been defined to be:
"Currency is capital seeking investment. While invested, it takes the
form of money, or of promises to deliver money on demand, but so soon as it is
invested, it loses its character of currency, and assumes that of stocks,
houses, or commodities."
-	Hugh Carey in ANSWER TO THE CURRENCY QUESTION, at page 6 [Lea &amp;
Blanchard, Philadelphia (1840); RARE BOOK COLLECTION, University of Rochester,
Seward Collection #410]. Before the Civil War there were actually few United
States Treasury Notes floating around the Countryside, as Currency at that
time, because the King's LEGAL TENDER ACTS had not yet been enacted, and the
King had not yet decided that the time had come to pull another grab and enact
penal statutes to create a national exclusive monopoly on currency instruments
for himself. Privately minted coins, bank notes, and mining company script, and
the like, then constituted the nation's currency. With that in mind, the
Illinois Supreme Court once defined CURRENCY as:
"By the term currency is understood bank bills, or other paper money
issued by authority, which pass as and for coin... In the case of JUDAH VS.
HAINS [19 J.R. 144], the Court decided that a note, payable in bank notes
current in the City of New York, was a valid note. The Court said they will
take notice that notes current in the City of New York are of cash value
throughout the State, and are distinguished by those words from other bank
notes, which are received at a discount, and hence it is immaterial whether the
notes of banks of other States might be tendered in payment, provided they are
current in the City of New York; in that case they are considered cash, equally
with the current bills of this State.
"From those authorities, it would seem that current bills, or currency,
are of the value of cash, and exclude the idea of depreciated money. If, then,
currency is taken as and for coin, it follows that such is its value..."
-	RICHARD SWIFT VS. JAMES WHITNEY, 20 Illinois 144, at 146 (1840). The
Supreme Court of Iowa once wrestled with a definition of CURRENCY:
"Currency is bank bills or other paper money which passes as a
circulating medium in the business community as, and for, the constitutional
coin of the country. The term 'current funds' means currency money, par funds,
or money circulating without any discount..."
"The word CURRENCY is, as we have seen, far from having a settled,
fixed and precise meaning. And even if it had such a meaning in general, it
might acquire in certain localities, or among certain classes, a different
signification."
-	PILMER VS. STATE BANK, 16 Iowa Reporter 321, at 328 (1864). And in
more recent times, the King, having sealed up with his gun barrel muscle
tactics a national monopoly on circulating currency instruments, an Appellate
Court in Illinois now changed the meaning of CURRENCY once again:
"Currency has been defined as funds or money circulating in the
business community without any discount, excluding the idea of depreciated
paper money."
-	JAKE LESS VS. S. ALPORT, 217 Illinois Appellate 14, at 17 (1920).
Here in the 1980's, the editors of BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, functioning as the
Government Billboards in the sense that the focus point of everything is always
juristic: Some slice of LEX over here, or some Case over there. Continuing on
with their Government center of gravity on everything the way they do, BLACK'S
defines CURRENCY as only to include those coins, banknotes, and paper money
that the King has officially recognized in his Legal Tender LEX [as if either
we or our Fathers in the 1800's really needed the King]:
"CURRENCY: Coined money and such banknotes or other paper money as are
authorized by law and do in fact circulate from hand to hand as the medium of
exchange. See... LEGAL TENDER [no cases are cited]."
-	BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 5th Edition. When those cases from the 1800's
stated that CURRENCY meant Notes [and NOTES are promises to pay] that are
exchanged AT PAR, what they mean is that those paper Notes carry an immediate
or CURRENT maturity date. To redeem a Note AT PAR meant to receive 100%
exchange for the Face Value that was stated on the Note; if the Note stated the
Face Value of 10 Gold Eagles, then if the Note was redeemed AT PAR 10 Gold
Eagles would then be your's; if redeemed at 90% of par, then 9 Gold Eagles
would be your's. Therefore, when the Maturity Date was current (immediate), the
Note could be exchanged for gold or silver AT PAR, if in fact you wanted the
coin instead of the Note. If the Note was exchangeable for hard coin say, one
or five years out in the future, then such a Note was not CURRENT, and would
only be exchanged for coin at below par (the percentage differential between
the par and the sub-par negotiated was the interest carrying cost the new Note
holder had to bear while he sat and waited for the Maturity Date to arrive).
But today, BLACK'S has done away with all of this, we have Legal Tender
statutes now in the modern era, and you just don't need to concern yourself
with none of that privately minted stuff.
<div>[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]<div> 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)].
<div>[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]<div> "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).
<div>[199]
Anglo-Saxon Kings have a long history of never bothering to stop pulling off
whatever they can get away with. [200]
[200]<div> 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).
<div>[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]<div> 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). <div>[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]<div> 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).
<div>[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]<div> "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.
<div>[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]<div> THE LEGAL
TENDER CASES, 79 U.S. 457, at 548 (1871).
<div>[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]<div> 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).
<div>[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]<div> "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).
<div>[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]<div> "... 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)].
<div>[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]<div> 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.
<div>[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]<div> "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).
<div>[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]<div> LAKE COUNTY
ESTATES, 440 U.S. 391, at 401 (1978).
<div>[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]<div> IN RE:
RUSSO, 53 Federal Rules Decisions 564 (United States District Court, 1971).
<div>[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]<div> "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.
<div>[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]<div> Inflation is
a Tort, and can be claimed as such in damage awards. See the Supreme Court in
JONES &amp; 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 $23000000000, were financed by money creation, and
other devices.
<div>[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]<div> "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)].
<div>[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]<div> 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.
<div>[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]<div> 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)].
<div>[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]<div> 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 &amp; 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)].
<div>[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]<div> "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.
<div>[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]<div> 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)].
<div>[219]
Designed by Gremlins the way it was, [220]
[220]<div> 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)]. <div>[220]
and because of its private corporate ownership and lack of public
accountability to the Congress and to the public. [221]
[221]<div> 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)].
<div>[221]
The Fed has never been audited by the GAO, [222]
[222]<div> "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)].
<div>[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]<div> 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 $10000000000 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.
<div>[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]<div> 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.
<div>[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]<div> 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.
<div>[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]<div> 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:
"... 14000 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 14000 tons of silver
in its entirety went into an Oak Ridge Government building for electrical
wiring]. <div>[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]<div> During a
speech at a FRED HIRSCH MEMORIAL LECTURE at Warwick University, Coventry,
England, on November 9, 1978.
<div>[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]<div> 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.
<div>[228]
If at all you question the legal authenticity of my conclusory statements, then
please read M'CULLOCH VS. MARYLAND, [229]
[229]<div> 17 U.S. 316
(1819). <div>[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]<div> "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).
<div>[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]<div> 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. <div>[231]
I see no general impediment to the King hiring private contractors to assist
him in tax collections. [232]
[232]<div>
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).
<div>[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]<div> 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"].
<div>[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]<div> HOW ANYONE
CAN STOP PAYING INCOME TAXES [Freedom Books, Hamden, Connecticut (1982)].
<div>[234]
and Representative George Hansen. [235]
[235]<div> TO HARASS
OUR PEOPLE: THE IRS AND GOVERNMENT ABUSE OF POWER [Positive Publications,
Washington, D.C. (1984)].
<div>[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]<div> 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).
<div>[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]<div> Whether or
not there was a legal minimum quorum in the United States Senate on that
pre-Christmas December day of 1913, is disputed.
<div>[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]<div>
-	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).
<div>[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]<div>
[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).
<div>[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]<div> "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).
<div>[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]<div>
-	KNOX VS. LEE, 79 U.S. 457 (1871).
<div>[246]
and also in times of peace. [247]
[247]<div> JULLIARD VS.
GREENMAN, 110 U.S. 421 (1884).
<div>[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]<div> 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.
<div>[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]<div> THE RECORDS
OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787 [Yale University Press, New Haven (1937); 4
volumes]. <div>[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]<div> See THE
FEDERAL TAXING POWER AS A MEANS OF ESTABLISHING A UNIFIED BANKING SYSTEM, Notes
["Legislation"], 46 Harvard Law Review 143 (1932).
<div>[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]<div> "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).
<div>[251]
Will someone please tell me how to challenge the Fed based on the INTERSTATE
COMMERCE CLAUSE? [252]
[252]<div> "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).
<div>[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]<div> 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.]
<div>[253]
The answer is that you are not going to. There are some sharp attorneys like
Edwin Vieira (Mr. Solyom's attorney), [254]
[254]<div> 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)].
<div>[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 &gt;phrase originated by Ayn Rand&lt;, 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]<div> 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 $14000 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.
<div>[255]
Other rulings also affirm the broad application of monetary powers. Later on in
VEAZIE BANK VS. FENNO, [256]
[256]<div> 75 U.S. 533
(1869). <div>[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]<div> HEPBURN VS.
GRISWOLD, 75 U.S. 603 (1870).
<div>[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]<div> 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). <div>[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]<div> 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.
<div>[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]<div> 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)].
<div>[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]<div> 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].
<div>[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]<div> 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)].
<div>[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]<div> 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. <div>[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]<div> 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)].
<div>[264]
who knew exactly what they were doing, for and on behalf of their sponsors.
[265]
[265]<div> 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 &gt;see TEXT FILE on THE NEWSTATES
CONSTITUTION, available on some BBS's for downloading&lt; -- 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 &amp; 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.] <div>[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 &gt;of Nicaraguan infamy&lt; 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]<div> 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.
<div>[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]<div> "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).
<div>[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]<div> 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.
</conspiracyFile>