register my book, "The $upertrader's Almanac", when the First Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America so clearly prohibits such legislation.

As the May 3rd, 1999 trial date neared, I prepared the following paper for the attorneys with the Institute for Justice, 1717 PennsylvaniaAvenue, N.W., Suite 200, Washington, D.C. 20006, who are representing me in TAUCHER V CFTC (1:97CV01711(RMU)).

The Great Illusion

Magicians are known for practicing the "art of illusion" whereby reality vanishes before our eyes as we are duped into believing that which is not. When we willingly and knowingly enter such magic shows, we find such tricks entertaining. Not so entertaining are those deceptions which occur in real life and are so well executed we're not even aware we've been duped.

This is a story of one of the greatest illusions of all time. It is an illusion which has effected, and continues today to effect, each and every citizen of the United States. Unfortunately, this illusion wasn't perpetrated with fun and entertainment in mind. It is real and has devastated the lives of many, including those who struggle to make ends meet today and the parents and grandparents thereof.

By the time you finish, it is possible that the warm feeling many American Citizens have in their hearts for Franklin D. Roosevelt, elected to an unprecedented four terms as President of the United States of America and widely proclaimed as having rescued the country from the depths of the Great Depression with his New Deal program, may change dramatically.

October 6, 1917

Our story begins just after the turn of the century. The "Titanic" had already gone to the bottom April 15, 1912 just two years before the Great War broke out in Europe.

Exactly six months after the United States entered the war on April 6, 1917, it was recognized that there might be enemies of the United States living within our borders in time of war. Congress thus passed an Act which identified who could be declared enemies of the United States and gave the government total authority over those enemies to do with them as it saw fit.

The Act October 6, 1917 legislation was;

"An Act to define, regulate, and punish trading with the enemy, and for other purposes."

Where did Congress derive its authority for such enactment? After all, we are all aware that Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution for the United States of America preserves the Great Writ of Liberty with the following words;

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion, the public Safety may require it."

This is the writ which guarantees that the government cannot charge and hold us with a crime unless the procedure of due process is followed. We also see, however, that the great Writ of Liberty can, in fact, be suspended when an invasion or a rebellion necessitates it or when "the public Safety may require it". At such times, suspension of the basic foundation of our Liberty is in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

The 5th Amendment also secures our Liberty with the words;

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, . . ."

It should be noted that the charging power was not given to government but was reserved by We the People. In other words, if We the People do not return an indictment through our Grand Jury, the government cannot proceed against the Citizen.

But note the next few words of the 5th Amendment;

" . . . except in cases arising in the land of naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time or War or public danger . . . "

The concept that a constitution and the rights of the people could be temporarily suspended is not new and was known even to the Roman Republic. In France, the condition under which the constitution could be suspended is called the State of Siege. In Great Britain, it's the Defense of the Realm. In Germany, it was simply called Article 48. It was the Article 48 powers Hitler used to establish his dictatorship. The equivalent in the United States is termed "War Powers".

The 1917 Congress was very careful who could be declared an enemy of the United States under its War Powers and in Section 2, Subdivision (c) applied the provisions of the act to those who were " . . . other than citizens of the United States". Such exclusion, of course, made sense since it was folly to believe that a country's own citizens were its enemy.

Section 5, Subdivision (b) of the Act further stated; "That the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, export or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, transfers of credit in any form (other than credits relating solely to transactions to be executed wholly within the United States)."

It is important to thus note that citizens of the United States and transactions within the United States were both exempted from the war powers. Consequently, We the People were still protected by the Constitution. The government did not have authority over citizens of the United States although it could do anything it wanted to its enemies.

Post War Events

The concept of emergency powers is that, once the emergency has ended, the emergency powers are to end and Constitutional protections are to be restored. However, in 1920, Supreme Court Justice Charles E. Hughes stated; "The conflict known as the World War has ended as far as military hostilities were concerned, but was not yet officially terminated. Most of the war statutes were still in effect, many of the emergency organizations were still in operation."

- Swisher, "Constitutional Development"

Justice Hughes continued, "We may well wonder in view of the precedents now established whether constitutional government as heretofore maintained in this Republic could survive another great war even victoriously waged."

In 1921, the Supreme Court stated in Stoehr vs. Wallace, "The Trading with the Enemy Act, originally and as amended, is strictly a war measure, and finds its sanction in the provision empowering Congress 'to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water'

Const. Art. I, Sect. 8, cl. 11. P. 241".

Federal Reserve Bank

Just prior to the outbreak of hostilities in Europe, the Federal Reserve Act was passed by Congress in 1913. One of the basic ideas of a central bank was that it would serve as a secure repository for the gold of the people. We the People would bring our gold to the huge, strong vaults of the Federal Reserve and would be issued a note which said that, at any time we desired, we could bring that note back to the bank and be given back the gold we had deposited.

In a 1967 speech entitled "Gold and Economic Freedom", Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve Board Chairman, stated;

" . . . prior to World War I, the banking system in the United States (and in most of the world) was based on gold, and even though governments intervened occasionally, banking was more free than controlled.

"When business in the United States underwent a mild contraction in 1927, the Federal Reserve created more paper reserves in the hope of forestalling any possible bank reserve shortage. More disastrous, however, was the Federal Reserve's attempt to assist Great Britain who had been losing gold to us because the Bank of England refused to allow interest rates to rise when market forces dictated (it was politically unpalatable). The reasoning of the authorities involved was as follows: if the Federal Reserve pumped excessive paper reserves into American banks, interest rates in the United States would fall to a level comparable with those in Great Britain; this would act to stop Britain's gold loss and avoid the political embarrassment of having to raise interest rates.

"The 'Fed' succeeded: it stopped the gold loss, but it nearly destroyed the economies of the world, in the process. The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market-triggering a fantastic speculative boom. Belatedly, Federal Reserve officials attempted to sop up the excess reserves and finally succeeded in braking the boom. But it was too late: by 1929 the speculative imbalances had become so overwhelming that the attempt precipitated a sharp retrenching and a consequent demoralizing of business confidence. As a result, the American economy collapsed. Great Britain fared even worse, and rather than absorb the full consequences of her previous folly, she abandoned the gold standard completely in 1931, tearing asunder what remained of the fabric of confidence and inducing a world-wide series of bank failures. The world economies plunged into the Great Depression of the 1930's."

As the Great Depression lingered, many needed to draw on their savings for sustenance and began to redeem their gold certificates. Prior to the establishment of the Federal Reserve System, the country had never experienced the type depression of the 1930s. Panics and crashes had occurred, of course, but were relatively mild and of short duration. The economy corrected its excesses and business went on to new highs. Stable prices and low inflation, except in times of war, were the order of the day.

Since the introduction of the Federal Reserve System in 1913, however, the purchasing power of the Federal Reserve "dollar" has constantly eroded.

March 2, 1933

On March 2, 1933, the Federal Reserve Board of New York responded with a resolution in response to a letter from President Herbert Hoover; "Resolution Adopted By The Federal Reserve Board of New York. Whereas, in the opinion of the Board of Directors of The Federal Reserve Band of New York, the continued and increasing withdrawal of currency and gold from the banks of the country has now created a national emergency . . . "

"Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that in this emergency, the Federal Reserve Board is hereby requested to urge the President of the United States to declare a bank holiday, Saturday, March 4, and Monday, March 6 . . . "

Contained in the Federal Reserve Board resolution was the following proposal for an executive order, to be worded as follows;

"Whereas, it is provided in Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, that 'the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange and the export, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, * * *'"

The standard accepted meaning of a series of three asterisks after a quotation means that what follows also must be quoted exactly. At the point where the "* * *" began, recall that the original Act of October 6, 1917 stated;

"(other than credits relating solely to transactions to be executed wholly within the United States)". Remember that this verbiage prohibited the government from taking control of We the People's money and transactions.The Federal Reserve Board of New York was proposing replacing these words with; "by any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Further, in the next section of The Federal Reserve Board's proposal was a provision that anyone found violating the Act would be fined not more than $ 10,000, or imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both.

At any time, this would be a severe enough penalty. Remember the harsh times, however, made all the more difficult by the economic conditions in which most Americans found themselves at the time. Obviously, these harsh conditions were of no concern to the Federal Reserve Board governors, nor was the plight of the common man. Note, too, that the proposals were not being advanced by any member of government or We the People, but by a private banking institution.

Let's review:

The Federal Reserve was stating that, in 1933, at the depths of the Depression, at a time when We the People, were struggling to stay alive and keep our families fed, "People are wanting their gold, wanting us to honor this contract we have with them to give them their gold on demand, and we don't want to give it to them. Therefore, Mr. President, we want you to protect our interests by declaring that this contractual obligation is creating a national emergency so that we won't have to honor the contract and give the People their gold."

President Hoover did not act on the recommendation, believing the action the Federal Reserve Board governors proposed was "neither justified nor necessary". - Appendix, Public Papers of Herbert Hoover, p. 1088.

March 3, 1933

In the Congressional Record, footnote # 10, Congressman Lemke stated;

" . . . This nation is bankrupt; every State in this Union is bankrupt; the people of the United States, as a whole, are bankrupt. The public and private debts of this Nation, which are evidenced by bonds, mortgages, notes, or other written instruments amount to about $ 250,000,000,000, and it is estimated that there is about $ 50,000,000,000 of which there is no record, making in all about $ 300,000,000,000 of public and private debts. The total physical cash value of all the property in the United States is now estimated at about $ 70,000,000,000. That is more than it would bring if sold at public auction. In this we do not include debts or the evidence of debts, such as bonds, mortgages, and so forth. These are not physical property. They will have to be paid out of the physical property. How are we going to pay $300,000,000,000 with only $ 70,000,000,000?" [emphasis added]

March 4, 1933

On March 4, 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt of New York was inaugurated as the 32nd President of the United States. The 73rd Congress was seated. President Roosevelt's inaugural address is often cited for its courage, vision, and exemplary leadership; "I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measure that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require. These measures, or such other measures as the Congress may build out of its experience and wisdom, I shall seek, within my constitutional authority, to bring to speedy adoption. But in the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, and in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis - broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe." [emphasis added]

President Roosevelt had a plan.

President Roosevelt planned to implement the resolution of the New York Federal Reserve Board.

President Roosevelt made no secret that he was preparing to ask Congress for the extraordinary authority available to him under the War Powers Act.

One should note that, since, as we have seen, the Trading With the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917 was still in effect, no further authority was actually required by Roosevelt to wage war against the enemies of the United States.

The key is that Roosevelt wanted to redefine who the enemy was. Pay close attention to the information of the following 5 days, for you are about to see the greatest slight of hand of the 20th century revealed before your very eyes!

March 5, 1933

One of President Roosevelt's first acts was to call, in Presidential Proclamation No. 2038, for an extraordinary session of Congress to be held on March 9, 1933

"Whereas, public interests require that the Congress of the United States should be convened in extra session at twelve o'clock noon, on the Ninth day of March, 1933, to receive such communications as may be made by the Executive." [emphasis added]

March 6, 1933

The next day, President Roosevelt issued Proclamation 2039, which stated;

"Whereas there have been heavy and unwarranted withdrawals of gold and currency from our banking institutions for the purpose of hoarding . . . "

President Roosevelt's conclusion that there had been "heavy and unwarranted withdrawals of gold and currency . . . " relied upon the opinion of an outside, private institution, the New York Federal Reserve Board, which had a conflict of interest in the matter and other objectives.

The conclusion essentially stated that the People who had a contract with the Federal Reserve Board were withdrawing their own gold in an "unwarranted" manner. Most people, in the harsh economic climate of the time, certainly did not feel that withdrawing their OWN gold to support their family was "unwarranted". But Roosevelt did not leave the decision to We the People. Instead, he relied upon a group of foreign bankers. "purpose of hoarding" was also a term added by President Roosevelt. It was used to help support Roosevelt's contention that the United States was in the middle of a national emergency and that the extraordinary powers conferred to him by the War Powers Act were needed to deal with that emergency.

Proclamation 2039 later continues;

"Whereas, it is provided in Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, (40 Stat. L. 411) as amended, 'that the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange and the export, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, * * *'" This wording is exactly as proposed by the New York Federal Reserve Board.

48 Statute 1, Title 1, Section 1 would later add the phrase in the amended Section 5(b);

"by any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in place of the asterisks. Note that, as of this date, the legislation had not yet even been proposed TO the Congress, let alone adopted BY the Congress!

March 9, 1933

Three days later, President Roosevelt issued Proclamation 2040 which stated;

"Whereas, on March 6, 1933, I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, by Proclamation declared the existence of a national emergency and proclaimed a bank holiday . . . " Note that both a national emergency and bank holiday were declared and that they both were declared by Presidential Proclamation.

Proclamation 2040 continued;

"Whereas, under the Act of March 9, 1933, all Proclamations heretofore or hereafter issued by the President pursuant to the authority conferred by Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are approved and confirmed." [emphasis added] The key words are "all", "heretofore or hereafter" and "approved".

Proclamation 2040 continued;

"Whereas, said national emergency still continues, and it is necessary to take further measure extending beyond March 9, 1933, in order to accomplish such purposes" [emphasis added]

In this section, we can see that there are more measures to follow which will extend beyond March 9, 1933. What were these "measures to follow"? In total, they became known as the "New Deal". For most Americans, mention of the "New Deal" normally produces a upwelling of pride and warm feelings. How long will these emergency measures of the "New Deal" last? We find the answer in the conclusion to Proclamation 2040 which states;

"Now, therefore, I Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, in view of such continuing national emergency and by virtue of the authority vested in me by Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. L. 411) as amended by the Act of March 9, 1933, do hereby proclaim, order, direct and declare that all the terms and provisions of said Proclamation of March 6, 1933, and the regulations and orders issued thereunder are hereby continued in full force and effect until further proclamation by the President." [emphasis added]

We've already seen that the Proclamation of March 6, 1933 was Proclamation 2039. These Proclamations, 2039 and 2040, will thus continue until such time as another proclamation is made by "the President", "the President" meaning any President and not just Roosevelt. Proclamations 2039 and 2040 were both issued March 6, 1933, three days before Congress was due to convene an extra session. Yet references were made to such things as the amended Section 5(b) which had not yet even been adopted or confirmed by Congress. Finally, note that these Proclamations were to continue "in full force and effect" until such time as the President, and only the President, changes the situation.

March 9, 1933

Three days later, President Roosevelt issued Proclamation 2040 which stated;

"Whereas, on March 6, 1933, I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, by Proclamation declared the existence of a national emergency and proclaimed a bank holiday . . . " Note that both a national emergency and bank holiday were declared and that they both were declared by Presidential Proclamation.

Proclamation 2040 continued;

"Whereas, under the Act of March 9, 1933, all Proclamations heretofore or hereafter issued by the President pursuant to the authority conferred by Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are approved and confirmed." [emphasis added] The key words are "all", "heretofore or hereafter" and "approved".

Proclamation 2040 continued;

"Whereas, said national emergency still continues, and it is necessary to take further measure extending beyond March 9, 1933, in order to accomplish such purposes" [emphasis added]

In this section, we can see that there are more measures to follow which will extend beyond March 9, 1933. What were these "measures to follow"? In total, they became known as the "New Deal". For most Americans, mention of the "New Deal" normally produces a upwelling of pride and warm feelings. How long will these emergency measures of the "New Deal" last? We find the answer in the conclusion to Proclamation 2040 which states;

"Now, therefore, I Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, in view of such continuing national emergency and by virtue of the authority vested in me by Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. L. 411) as amended by the Act of March 9, 1933, do hereby proclaim, order, direct and declare that all the terms and provisions of said Proclamation of March 6, 1933, and the regulations and orders issued thereunder are hereby continued in full force and effect until further proclamation by the President." [emphasis added]

We've already seen that the Proclamation of March 6, 1933 was Proclamation 2039. These Proclamations, 2039 and 2040, will thus continue until such time as another proclamation is made by "the President", "the President" meaning any President and not just Roosevelt. Proclamations 2039 and 2040 were both issued March 6, 1933, three days before Congress was due to convene an extra session. Yet references were made to such things as the amended Section 5(b) which had not yet even been adopted or confirmed by Congress. Finally, note that these Proclamations were to continue "in full force and effect" until such time as the President, and only the President, changes the situation.

Act of March 9, 1933

On this same date, Congress approved the amendment of Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917. The enabling portion of the Act states; "Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress hereby declares that a serious emergency exists and that it is imperatively necessary speedily to put into effect remedies of uniform national application." [emphasis added] The phrase which obviously sticks out in this statement is "imperatively necessary speedily". The word "necessary" invokes the rule of necessity which knows no law. A good example is the concept of self-defense. The law states, "Thou shalt not kill". You have the right to protect your own life, however, and if in dire danger, have the absolute right of self-defense. Such is the ultimate rule of necessity. The rule of necessity thus allows one to do what would normally be unlawful. We thus know that the legislation to follow would normally be againstthe law. It will also be against the Constitution for the United States of America or it would not require that the rule of necessity be invoked to enact it.

Our suspicions are confirmed right off the bat in Title 1, Section 1 which states;

"The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March the 4th, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by subdivision (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are hereby approved and confirmed." Note the inclusion of the Secretary of the Treasury as an integral part of this scheme. As we shall later see, the Secretary of the Treasury today is the integral part of the internationalization of the United States' power and authority.

Continuing, Section 2 states;

"Subdivision (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. L 411) as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows"; "During time of war or during any other period of national emergency declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President and export, hoarding, melting or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, by any person within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Did you catch it? The deception just occurred before your very eyes! This point is so critical, the Act of October 6, 1917 and the Act of March 9, 1933 are both again presented with the common language underlined for clarification;

"That the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, export or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, transfers of credit in any form (other than credits relating solely to transactions to be executed wholly within the United States)."

"During time of war or during any other period of national emergency declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President and export, hoarding, melting or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, by any person within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Do you see it now?

First, protections afforded domestic transactions in the 1917 Act were deleted. Second, "any person" became subject to the extraordinary powers conferred by the 1917 Act in the 1933 amendment. As far as commercial, monetary or business transactions were concerned, citizens of the United States were no longer differentiated from any other enemy of the United States. All monetary transactions, whether domestic or international in scope, were now placed at the whim of the President of the United States through the authority given to him by the Trading with the Enemy Act.

We can now see that the usage of "* * *" was, in all likelihood, meant to be deliberately misleading, if not outright fraudulent in nature. Citizens of the United States were now subject to the power of the Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, as amended. For the purposes of all commercial, monetary and, in effect, all business transactions, citizens of the United States became the same as the enemy and were treated no differently. There no longer was any distinction.

It is important to note that the words "During time of war or during any other period of national emergency declared by the President . . . " enabled the President alone, and on his sole discretion and authority, to invoke the war powers not only in times of war, but also in periods of "national emergency" as the President of the United States might so define the latter term.

Do the terms "War on Drugs", "War on Poverty", and other such declared wars not now take on different meaning? Were these not declared wars against our own against our own citizens? What might the President do to citizens of the United States under this section? The answer is that he can do anything he wants to do. His actions are purely at his own discretion and he can use any agency or licensing requirement he desires to control his subjects and accomplish his goals. He is a dictator under constitutional perogative. He is, in fact, as a King and we are as the indentured servants.

"Feudalism (private federalism) is apt to appear whenever the strain of preserving a relatively large political unit proves to be beyond the economic and psychic resources of a society."- Strayer, Joseph R., "On The Medieval Origins Of The Modern State" (1979)

Congressional Abdication Beginning March 9, 1933

The Congressional Record of March 9, 1933 confirms that our congressmen didn't have copies of the bill to read, on which they were to vote. The New York Federal Reserve Board Governors and Franklin Delano Roosevelt were not alone in their scheme. A copy of the bill was passed around for about 40 minutes.

Congressman McFadden made the comment; "Mr. Speaker, I regret that the membership of the House has had no opportunity to consider or even read this bill. The first opportunity I had to know what this legislation is, was when it was read from the clerk's desk. It is an important banking bill. It is a dictatorship over finance in the United States. It is complete control over the banking system in the United States . . . It is difficult under the circumstances to discuss this bill. The first section of the bill, as I grasped it, is practically the war powers that were given back in 1917."

Congressman McFadden later asked;

"I would like to ask the chairman of the committee if this is a plan to change the holding of the security back of the Federal Reserve notes to the Treasury of the United States rather than the Federal Reserve agent."

What Congressman McFadden's query was perceptive and on point. He is stating that the essence of the legislation would make the Treasury of the United States the guarantor of the paper money notes issued by the private entity, the Federal Reserve.

What is astonishing is that this scheme not only made the Treasury of the United States the guarantor of the paper money notes of the Federal Reserve, but that the Treasury would not have control over the issuance of the notes or the quantity of notes to be issued. In other words, the Treasury of the United States would be on the hock for however many notes the Federal Reserve issued.

Chairman Steagall responded;

"This provision is for the issuance of Federal Reserve bank notes; and not for Federal Reserve notes; and the security back of it is the obligations, notes, drafts, bills of exchange, bank acceptances, outlined in the section to which the gentleman has referred."

In other words, the obligations of the Treasury were to be backed by the collateral of the people as evidenced by their property and taxes.

Congressman McFadden continued;

"Then the new circulation is to be Federal Reserve bank notes and not Federal Reserve notes. Is that true?"

Chairman Steagall; "Insofar as the provisions of this section are concerned, yes."

Congressman Britten; "From my observations of the bill as it was read to the House, it would appear that the amount of bank notes that might be issued by the Federal Reserve System is not limited. That will depend entirely upon the amount of collateral that is presented from time to time for exchange for bank notes. Is that not correct?"

Congressman Patman;

"The money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar because it is backed by the credit of the Nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes and other property of all the people in the Nation."

What's this? We're backing Roosevelt's scheme with our mortgages and property? You've got to pay close attention to catch the slight of hand on this one. Try reading it again if you didn't catch it the first time. Now note that, prior to 1933, the Federal Reserve held the people's gold as security in return for Federal Reserve gold notes which We the People could redeem at any time. On March 9, 1933, our gold was seized through emergency powers, citizens of the United States were made penniless, and the nation's money was to be secured, not by gold, but by notes and obligations on which citizens of the United States were the collateral security. Citizens of the United States had become chattel. "I can . . . fight this Frankenstein which the New Deal has created and which is rapidly gobbling up every vestige of right which the people have and enjoy today . . . . I feel it necessary that the Congress take some steps against this bureaucratic invasion, not only of the people's rights, but of the right of Congress and of every other legislative and judicial branch of our Government. . . . You are reducing them [the American people] to the status of a serf." - 78th Congress, 1st Session, Jan. 1 to Mar. 1, 1943. Words of Mr. Edwin Arthur Hall on January 27th.

March 10, 1933

President Roosevelt and the Federal Reserve desperately needed the support of agriculture because of all the millions of acres of farmland and the value of that farmland. The mortgage on that farmland was what was to support the emergency credit. To accomplish his objective, President Roosevelt had to do something to stabilize the price of land and cause the creation of Federal Reserve bank notes through the mortgages on farms. He planned to accomplish this objective by impressing agriculture into the public interest through nationalization of the farming industry. But surely the independent, ruggedly individualistic farmers would never fall for such a scheme . . .

The Roosevelt Papers state;

"This conference of fifty farm leaders met on March 10, 1933. They agreed on recommendations for a bill, which were presented to me at the White House on March 11th by a committee of the conference, who requested me to call upon the Congress for the same broad powers to meet the emergency in agriculture as I had requested for solving the bank crisis." The "broad powers" Roosevelt specified were his emergency War Powers.

March 11, 1933

President Roosevelt met with the agriculture leaders on March 11, 1933. Astonishingly, it was the farm leaders that were asking President Roosevelt to exercise the same broad War Powers to take control of the agriculture industry. Needless to say, Roosevelt was only too happy to accommodate their demand and take over their property and livelihoods!

By March 11, 1933, comforted by the knowledge that he had agriculture in his hip pocket, President Roosevelt made his first radio "Fireside Chat". In this chat, he stated;

"The Secretary of the Treasury will issue licenses to banks which are members of the Federal Reserve system, whether national bank or state, located in each of the 12 Federal Reserve bank cities, to open Monday morning." [emphasis added]

Licenses are a privilege granted by government. In those industries subject to a license, it is illegal to operate without one. You can't practice your trade or sell your goods unless you first gain government's approval. This licensing authority is clearly contrary to the unalienable rights granted to each individual man by our Creator as declared in the Declaration of Independence. It is government's requirement that I first license my speech that is the subject of my First Amendment suit against government I referenced in the introduction to this paper. It was by this action that the Treasury took over the banking system.

Again, we see that the Secretary of the Treasury has become a key player in Roosevelt's scheme, the "New Deal". Are you beginning to see why many informed American Citizens refer to Roosevelt's plan scheme NOT as the "New Deal", but as the "Raw Deal"?

From Statutes at Large, in the Congressional Record;

"When required to do so by the Secretary of the Treasury, each Federal Reserve agent shall act as agent of the Treasury of the United States or of the Comptroller of the currency, or both, for the performance of any functions which the Treasurer or the Comptroller may be called upon to perform in carrying out the provisions of this paragraph."

The Federal Reserve was taken over by the Treasury.

The Treasury holds the assets.

We are the collateral - ourselves, our property and our ability to pay taxes.

Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, 11th Reprint, 1997, defines the Bank Holiday of 1933 as follows;

"Presidential Proclamations No. 2039, issued March 6, 1933, and No. 2040, issued March 9, 1933, temporarily suspended banking transactions by member banks of the Federal Reserve System. Normal banking functions were resumed on March 13, subject to certain restrictions. The first proclamation, it was held, had no authority in law until the passage on March 9, 1933, of a ratifying act (12 U.S.C.A. Sect. 95b). Anthony v. Bank of Wiggins, 183 Miss. 833, 184 So. 626. The present law forbids member banks of the Federal Reserve System to transact banking business except under regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury, during an emergency proclamation by the President . . ." [emphasis added]

Do Federal Reserve banks transact business today? Do you see that the business they transact is under the regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury? Do you understand that these regulations are only in effect "during an emergency proclamation by the President"? Do you understand that the President has issued such emergency proclamations in Presidential Proclamations No. 2039 and 2040?

Note the term "present law" in the definition which states that banks remain under regulation of the Treasury as of the 1997 printing of Black's Law Dictionary. Can you thus see that the state of emergency is still in existence?

March 13, 1933

Congressman Patman in the Congressional Record of this date;

"I want to show you where the people are being imposed upon by reason of the delegation of this tremendous power. I invite your attention to the fact that section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act provides that whenever the Government of the United States issues and delivers money, Federal Reserve notes, which are based on the credit of the Nation - they represent a mortgage upon your home and my home, and upon all the property of all the people of the Nation - to the Federal Reserve agent, an interest charge shall be collected for the Government."

Confiscation of Gold

48 Statute 1 further stated;

"Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary of the Treasury such action is necessary to protect the currency system of the United States, the Secretary of the Treasury, in his discretion, may require any or all individuals, partnerships, associations and corporations to pay and deliver to the Treasurer of the United States any or all gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates owned by such individuals, partnerships, associations and corporations."

Note, again, the role of the Secretary of the Treasury. This is the Statute authorizing action to require everyone to turn in their gold. Failure to do so would constitute a violation of this provision and would be punishable by a fine of not more than $ 10,000 and imprisonment for not more than ten years. In pure and simple terms, it was outright seizure.

Confiscation. Piracy.

When may the Secretary of the Treasury require the above specified assets to be surrendered? ANYTIME! Whose gold was to be seized? The enemy's. Who was the enemy? Citizens of the United States were and are.

To ensure that citizens of the United States had no right to redeem their own gold from the Federal Reserve, House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933 declared;

"That (a) every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount of money of the United States measured thereby is declared to be against public policy; and no such policy shall be contained in or made with respect to any obligation hereafter incurred."

Our contract with the Federal Reserve was invalidated at the end of Roosevelt's hundred days. We lost our right to require our gold back from the bank in which we deposited it.

Before June 5, 1933, there was public money for private debts. After June 5th, there was private money for public debts. Since June 5th, one can only use private credit money operating in the public sector as public policy to discharge, but not pay, private debts.

"In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holdings illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other goods, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and the government created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves."

- Alan Greenspan (1962), Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank,

Remnant Review Newsletter (June 16, 1989)

Issuance of Emergency Currency

Roosevelt's Papers stated;

"During this banking holiday it was at first believed that some form of script or emergency currency would be necessary for the conduct of ordinary business. We knew that it would be essential when the banks reopened to have an adequate supply of currency to meet all possible demands of depositors. Consideration was given by government officials and various local agencies to the advisability of issuing clearing-house certificates or some similar form of local emergency currency. On March 7, 1933, the Secretary of the Treasury issued a regulation authorizing clearing houses to issue demand certificates against sound assets of the banking institution, but the authority was not to become effective until March 10th. In many cities the printing of these certificates was actually begun, but after passage of the Emergency Banking Act of March 9, 1933 (48 Stat. 1), it became evident that they would not be needed, because the Act made possible the issue of the necessary amount of emergency currency in the form of Federal Reserve bank-notes which could be based on any sound assets owned by banks."

The Act of March 9, 1933 thus gave Roosevelt the power to issue emergency currency. This currency was to be called Federal Reserve Bank notes.

From Title 4 of the Act;

"Upon the deposit with the Treasurer of the United States, (a) of any direct obligations of the United States or (b) of any notes, drafts, bills of exchange or bankers' acceptance acquired under the provisions of this Act, any Federal Reserve Bank making such deposit in the manner prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury shall be entitled to receive from the Comptroller of the currency circulating notes in blank, duly registered and countersigned."

What was the effect of this provision?

The Treasury through the Comptroller of the currency shall issue a circulating note endorsed in blank, duly registered and countersigned. This emergency currency was to be based on the (a) public and (b) private obligations of citizens of the United States.

One might recall Article I, Section 8, Clause 2, which stated;

"The Congress shall have the Power; "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;"

and Article I, Section 8, Clause 2, which stated;

"The Congress shall have the Power; "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin . . ."

How is it that the Executive branch wound up issuing emergency currency, and citing the Constitution as its authority, when the authority to coin all money and regulate the value thereof clearly rests with the Congress?

Can you see how the Secretary of the Treasury is beginning to acquire more financial power than the Congress?

The Agriculture Adjustment Act, also titled the Emergency Farm Mortgage Act of 1933, stated;

"Title III - Financing - And Exercising Power Conferred by Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution: To Coin Money and To Regulate the Value Thereof."

Section 43 states;

"Whenever the President finds upon investigation that the foreign commerce of the United States is adversely affected . . . and an expansion of credit is necessary to secure by international agreement a stabilization at proper levels of the currencies of various governments, the President is authorized, in his discretion . . . To direct the Secretary of the Treasury to enter into agreements with the several Federal Reserve banks . . . "

Stabilization of the currencies of various governments at various levels? To secure by international agreement???

What chicanery and deception is this?

Does this mean all those international summits like the "World Summit on Global Warming" held in Brazil, GATT and so on? Here we are seeing a giant step forward in the internationalists' long-held objective of world-wide control backed by American debt and military power. What happened to the "advice and consent of the Senate" in these currency stabilization schemes? The deception was so well-executed and the illusion so great, however, that only a few realized what was happening.

Continuing with the Ag Act, Section 1 states;

"To direct the Secretary of the Treasury to cause to be issued in such amount, or amounts as he may from time to time order, United States notes, as provided in the Act entitled 'An Act to authorize the issue of United States notes for the redemption of funding thereof and for funding the floating debt of the United States, approved February 25, 1862, and Acts supplementary thereto and amendatory thereof."

The Act of February 25, 1862 is the Greenback Act of President Abraham Lincoln. When Lincoln was elected and inaugurated, Congress did not assemble for the first six weeks. Lincoln did not call an extra session of Congress. Instead, he issued money, declared war, suspended habeas corpus, and established an absolute FEDERAL Constitutional dictatorship.

When Lincoln's Congress came into session six weeks later, the following statement was entered into the Congressional record:

"The actions, rules, regulations, licenses, heretofore or hereafter taken, are hereby approved and confirmed . . . "

This is the same language used in the Act of March 9, 1933 and codified in 12 USC 95 (b) today. This is not the time or place to review the effect of Lincoln's actions on the Constitution and the country. It's a subject as important as are the events recorded in this paper, however.

One clue to how effective the slight of hand has been is that, even today, you won't find any of this in the history books. Suffice it to say that some consider it a close race whether Roosevelt or Lincoln committed the greater Treason against We the People.

March 12, 1933

Roosevelt needed the agricultural assets to support his and the Federal Reserve Board's credit scheme. Just one day after President Roosevelt met with our "our farm leaders" on May the 11th, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, of May the 12th, Declaration of Emergency stated;

"That the present acute economic emergency being in part the consequence of a severe and increasing disparity between the prices of agriculture and other commodities, which disparity has largely destroyed the purchasing power of farmers for industrial products, has broken down the orderly exchange of commodities, and has seriously impaired the agricultural assets supporting the national credit structure, it is hereby declared that these conditions in the basic industry of agriculture have affected transactions in agricultural commodities with a national public interest, have burdened and obstructed the normal currents of commerce in such commodities and rendered imperative the immediate enactment of Title 1 of this Act." [emphasis added]

Licensing Requirements

Senate Report No. 113, An Act to Define, Regulate and Punish Trading with the Enemy, and For Other Purposes, states;

"The trade or commerce regulated or prohibited is defined in Subsections (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), page 4. This trade covers almost every imaginable transaction, and is forbidden and made unlawful except when allowed under the form of licenses issued by the Secretary of Commerce (p. 4, sec. 3, line 18).

This authorization of trading under licenses constitutes the principal modification of the rule of international law forbidding trade between the citizens of belligerent, for the power to grant such licenses, and therefore exemption from the operation of law, is given by the bill." [emphasis added]

It says no trade or intercourse can be conducted without a license, because, by mere definition of the enemy, and under the prize law, all intercourse is illegal (wait 'till Clinton hears about this).

In the first 100 days of the reign of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the licensing authority of numerous industries was seized by government. As an example, the Agricultural Adjustment Act of May 2, 1933 was passed;

"To issue licenses permitting processors, associations of producers and others to engage in the handling, in the current of interstate and foreign commerce, of any agricultural commodity or product thereof." [emphasis added]

This power to determine who would and would not work in the agriculture industry effectively seized the industry. Remember, licenses are grants of privilege issued by government which can be revoked, or taken away. Similar seizures were completed by government in other industries such as transportation, communications, public utilities, securities, oil, labor, and all natural resources. In other words, the widely acclaimed first hundred days of F.D.R. witnessed the nationalization of the United States, its people and its assets.

Confiscation of Constitutional Protections

In 1933, Congressman Beck stated in the Congressional Record;

"I think of all the damnable heresies that have ever been suggested in connection with the Constitution, the doctrine of emergency is the worst. It means that when Congress declares an emergency, there is no Constitution. This means its death. It is the very doctrine that the German chancellor is invoking today in the dying hours of the parliamentary body of the German republic, namely, that because of an emergency, it should grant to the German chancellor absolute power to pass any law, even though the law contradicts the Constitution of the German republic. Chancellor Hitler is at least frank about it. We pay the Constitution lip-service, but the result is the same."

Congressman Beck understood that once Congress declares an emergency, there is no Constitution. He was saying that we were about to invoke the same powers Hitler used to establish the Third Reich. It should not be overlooked by the reader that these are the same powers in effect today in the United States.

Congressman Beck continued;

"But the Constitution of the United States, as a restraining influence in keeping the federal government within the carefully prescribed channels of power, is moribund, if not dead. We are witnessing its death - agonies, for when this bill becomes a law, if unhappily it becomes a law, there is no longer any workable Constitution to keep the Congress within the limits of its Constitutional powers."

Congressman Beck was talking about the 1933 Farm Bill. The 1933 Farm Bill passed by a vote of more than three to one. Wonder what the margin was in Germany for Hitler?

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution for the United States of America states that Congress shall have the power;

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

The "Memorandum of American Cases and Recent English Cases on The Law of Trading With the Enemy" states;

"Every species of intercourse with the enemy is illegal. This prohibition is not limited to mere commercial intercourse." "By the general law of prize, property engaged in an illegal intercourse with the enemy is deemed enemy property. It is of no consequence whether it belongs to an ally or to a citizen; the illegal traffic stamps it with the hostile character, and attaches to it all the penal consequences of enemy ownership."

From The William Bagaley case of 1866;

"In general, during war, contracts with, or powers of attorney or agency from the enemy executed after outbreak of war are illegal and void; contracts entered into with the enemy prior to the war are either suspended or are absolutely terminated; partnerships with an enemy are dissolved; powers of attorney from the enemy, with certain exceptions, laps; payments to the enemy (except to agents in the United States appointed prior to the war and confirmed since war) are illegal and void; all rights of an enemy to sue in the courts are suspended."

The "Memorandum of American Cases and Recent English Cases on The Law of Trading With the Enemy" further states;

"But it is necessary always to bear in mind that a war cannot be carried on without hurting somebody, even at times, our own citizens. The public good, however must prevail over private gain. As we said in Bishop vs. Jones (28 Texas, 294) there cannot be 'a war for arms and a peace of commerce'. One of the most important features of the bill is that which provides for the temporary taking over of the enemy property."

This point of law is important to keep in mind, for it authorizes the temporary take-over of enemy property.

And who's the enemy? Citizens of the United States, that's who!

Today, there are over 100 federal asset seizure laws in the United States. Finally, "No contract is considered as valid between enemies, at least so far as to give them a remedy in the courts of either government, and they have, in the language of the civil law, no ability to sustain a persona stand in judicio."

NON PERSONA STAND IN JUDICIO

In other words, citizens of the United States have no personal rights at law in court. Citizens of the United States have no Constitutional rights they might invoke. There is no Great Writ of Liberty, Habeas Corpus, for citizens of the United States. This clause appears to have negated all contracts, even those between private parties and, especially, those between government and its enemies including, but not limited to, citizens of the United States.

"The right to thus occupy an enemy's country and temporarily provide for its government has been recognized by previous action of the executive authority, and sanctioned by frequent decisions of this court. The local government being destroyed, the conqueror may set up its own authority, and make rules and regulations for the conduct of temporary government, and to that end may collect taxes and duties to support the military authority and carry on operations incident to the occupation."

Macleod v. U.S., 229 U.S. 416 (1913)

"The right of one belligerent to occupy and govern the territory of the enemy while in its military possession is one of the incidents of war, and flows directly from the right to conquer.

We therefore do not look to the Constitution or political institutions of the conqueror for authority to establish a government for the territory of the enemy in his possession, during its military occupation, nor for the rules by which the powers of such government are regulated and limited. Such authority and such rules are derived directly from the laws of war, as established by the usage of the world and confirmed by the writings of publicists and decisions of courts, - in fine, from the law of nations . . . . The municipal laws of a conquered territory or the laws which regulate private rights, continue in force during military occupation, except so far as they are suspended or changed by the acts of the conqueror . . . . He, nevertheless, has all the powers of a de facto government, and can at his pleasure either change the existing laws or make new ones." Dooley v. U.S., 182 U.S. 222 (1901)

"The jurisdiction of the conqueror is complete. He may change the form of government and the laws at his pleasure, and may exercise every attribute of sovereignty. The conquered territory becomes a part of the domain of the conqueror, subject to the right of the nation to which it belonged to recapture it if they can." Fleming v. Page, 50 U.S. 603 (1850)

"By the modern phrase, a man who resides under the allegiance and protection of a hostile state for commercial purposes is to be considered to all civil purposes as much an 'alien enemy' as if he were born there." Hutchinson v. Brock, 11 Mass. 119, 122.

"Residence or doing business in a hostile territory is the test of an 'alien enemy' within meaning of Trading with the Enemy Act and Executive Orders thereunder." Executive Order March 11, 1942, No. 9095, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix 6; Trading with the Enemy Act 5 (b). In re Oneida Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Utica, 53 N.Y.S. 2d. 416, 420, 421, 183 Misc. 374. [emphasis added]

"The phrase Alien Enemy is defined in Words and Phrases as: Residence of person in territory of nation at war with United States was sufficient to characterize him as 'alien enemy' within Trading with the Enemy Act, even if he had acquired and retained American citizenship." Matarrese v. Matarrese, 59 A.2d 262, 265, 142 N.J. Eq. 226.

"Alien enemies are said to have no rights, no privileges, unless by the king's special favor, during time of war"; 1 Bla. Com 372; Bynkershoek 195; 8 Term 166.

"He who owes a temporary but not a permanent allegiance is an alien enemy in respect to acts done during such temporary allegiance only; and when his allegiance terminates, his hostile character terminates also"; 1 B. & P. 163.

"The phrase Alien Enemy is defined in Bouvier's Law Dictionary as: One who owes allegiance to the adverse belligerent." 1 Kent 73.

Remember Senate Report Number 113 and its discussion of "citizens of belligerent".

Who is the belligerent?

The United States Government, that's who!

Abdication of the Supreme Court

The final adjudicator of the laws passed by the legislator and signed by the President is the Supreme Court (Marbury v Madison). Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution for the United States of America vests the judicial power of the United States in the supreme Court and such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

In United States vs. Butler, 297 US 1 (1936), the Supreme Court stated;

"A tax, in the general understanding and in the strict Constitutional sense, is an exaction for the support of the government; the term does not connote the expropriation of money from one group to be expended for another, as a necessary means in a plan of regulation, such as the plan for regulating agricultural production set up in the Agricultural Adjustment Act."

In other words, the Supreme Court here was saying that a tax could only be an exaction for the support of government and not an expropriation from one group for the use of another. If such were the case, we would have socialism.

Also; "The regulation of farmer's activities under the statute, though in form subject to his own will, is in fact coercion through economic pressure; his right of choice is illusory. Even if a farmer's consent were purely voluntary, the Act would stand no better. At best it is a scheme for purchasing with federal funds submission to federal regulation of a subject reserved to the states."

The Supreme Court is clearly stating that such regulation is obtained through coercion. The contracts are adhesion contracts made by a superior over an inferior. These adhesion contracts are under the belligerent capacity of government over captives and enemies. The Supreme Court appears to be stating that they are not valid contracts.

"If the novel view of the General Welfare Clause now advanced in support of the tax were accepted, this clause would not only enable Congress to supplant the states in the regulation of agriculture and all other industries as well, but would furnish the means whereby all of the other provisions of the Constitution, sedulously framed to define the limit of the powers of the United States and preserve the powers of the states, could be broken down, the independence of the individual states obliterated, and the United States converted into a central government exercising uncontrolled police power throughout the union superseding all local control over local concerns." [emphasis added]

Can it be more clearly stated, and by no less an authority than the Supreme Court itself? The objective of Roosevelt's New Deal was to dissolve the sovereignty of the individual states and what remained of the balance of power upon which our Republic rests. The United States Supreme Court ruled the New Deal and the nationalization unconstitutional in the Agricultural Adjustment Act. The Supreme Court stated, in essence, that Roosevelt was turning the federal government into an uncontrolled police state exercising uncontrolled police power. So what did Roosevelt do in return to save his precious New Deal and his federal police state? He stacked the Supreme Court and in 1937, United States vs. Butler was overturned!

The 65th Congress during Woodrow Wilson's Presidency stated, 1st Session, Doc. 87, under the section entitled Constitutional Sources of Laws of War, page 7, Clause II;

"The existence of war and the restoration of peace are to be determined by the political department of the government, and such determination is binding and conclusive upon the courts, and deprives the courts of the power of hearing proof and determining as a question of fact either that war exists or has ceased to exist."

In other words, the courts will not hear the question of the exercise of the war powers because they do not have jurisdiction. The courts were deprived of the Constitution. They were deprived of the common laws. There are now courts of