Category Archives: Political Commentary

Happy "Co-Dependent's Day"!

Happy “Co-Dependent’s Day”!

Wave your star spangled tatter on a stick and contemplate the myriad laws, regulations, policies, and ordinances which control virtually every aspect of your life.

You are incapable of acting autonomously without first looking to your “Sovereign Enabler”, the government, in all its cancerous manifestations to first grant you permission and collect the requisite fee. Fill your pockets with papers and prepare to present upon demand.

Long ago, men spilled blood so you may live your life as you see fit; and unfortunately most, rather than some, fit into the shackles of voluntary servitude.

Today, I will live so freely that the government “ordained” to protect said freedoms may possibly kill me in that exercise because they choose to define “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” through the barrel of a gun and in contradiction to my conscience.

Happy Birthday, America; you old, weathered, tired, raped, beaten, emaciated, demented, and in-need of euthanasia, corporate whore and concubine to bankers.

If my words offend you, remember this; the men and actions you celebrate today make my diatribe appear as a a salubrious salutation since those men violently overthrew their government, killed countrymen, and denied a king. They were traitors, murderers, seditionists, rebels, and terrorists. If you can celebrate them, and defile all they worked for, then you can palate my acerbic dissent. If my passion and conscience finds no favor with your reason, then please un-friend me. If you find yourself in some agreement, look in the mirror and weep, for this old wretch is the dominatrix into whose care you entrust this country’s progeny.

I regret that I am now to die in the belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves, by the generation of ’76. to acquire self government and happiness to their country, is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be that I live not to weep over it. if they would but dispassionately weigh the blessings they will throw away against an abstract principle more likely to be effected by union than by scission, they would pause before they would perpetrate this act of suicide on themselves and of treason against the hopes of the world. – Thomas Jefferson – Monticello Apr. 22. 20

Tagged ,

Babies without Social Security Numbers & Without Birth Certifications


The document “Baby’s with no birth certificates nor social security numbers has been on this web
page ( for a considerable length of time, and in my view has not
gotten the attention it deserves. To provide some interest in its content and merit I have decided
to provide the following background information. Following the background information is the
original “Baby’s with no birth certificates nor social security numbers document. We often see
people whining about the actions taken by government with regards to their’ children, but these
same people will chose to ignore the information available when the opportunity presents itself.


Acting on false assumptions instead of on facts assures that our actions will lead us into
unintended obstacles. You cannot reach desired goals by taking the wrong paths. In no case is
this more apparent than in the matter of dates of birth. Make the wrong assumption, and you will
grovel in inescapable slavery. Act on facts, and you will set yourself free. Here are some facts
that are relevant to the subject of dates of birth:

Like many, many other words, “birth” and “date” have precise legal meanings which if not
fully comprehended will lead us into great trouble.

Through long training, habit and repetition we come to associate our date of birth with
that day, month and year on which we squeezed, kicking and screaming from our mother’s womb.
It’s been a bad habit with terrible consequences for most of us. That day of our entrance into this
world is not the birth date of the person named on the birth certificate! We have been suffering
under a false assumption. It’s high time we corrected the error.

BOUVIER’S LAW DICTIONARY (1867) defines “birth” as “the act of being brought
wholly into the world.” In expanding on this succinct definition, Bouvier’s remarks restrict the
legal meaning to the subject of actual, physical childbirth.

It goes without saying that a lot of water has passed under the bridge since Bouvier
penned his authoritative definition of “birth”. The forms of government have been radically
altered, and in many instances words have been assigned different meanings. Sometimes the
differences are subtle; sometimes extreme.

Today, Black’s Law Dictionary (Fifth Edition) defines “birth” to appear deceptively similar
to the definition given by Bouvier. Black’s defines “birth” as “The act of being born OR wholly
brought into separate existence.” The careless observer will discern no significant differences
between the definitions given by Bouvier and Black. But the differences are VERY

Bouvier does not provide a definition for “born”. But if he had, we can discern from his
definition of “birth” that he would define “born” as describing a human birth.

Black’s does provide its definition of “born” to mean:
“Act of being delivered or expelled from mother’s body.”
Black’s definition for “born” is essentially identical to Bouvier’s definition of “birth.” And like
Bouvier’s, Black’s first definition of “birth” describes a human birth.
But Black’s continues in his definitions of “birth”, providing a different, alternate
definition, “…OR (the act of being) wholly brought into separate existence.”

There is a subtle but significant difference between Bouvier’s “brought wholly” and Black’s
“wholly brought”.

In the case of Bouvier’s definition, “wholly” describes the total extent to which one comes
forth and separates from the womb; that not just parts of the new creature have exited and taken
on separate existence, but all of him. This refers only to a natural child/being.

Black’s uses “wholly” to describe the extent to which a generic entity, not a human being,
is deemed to have experienced “birth.” “Birth” by Black’s second definition requires that the
subject be completely and totally brought into existence. The difference between “wholly
brought” and “brought wholly” is something of a brain-teaser, but meditate on it and the
difference will come to you.

Bouvier refers to the child being brought into the WORLD, the connotation being that
something real and substantial, observable by the senses has arrived on the planet.

Black’s “brought into separate existence” can easily include a legal fiction or other artificial
entity, such as a name/person.

So far our inquiry has established that in modern legal jargon “birth” can mean the delivery
of a human child, OR the act of bringing into full and complete existence an artificial entity.

We find similar games played with the word, “DATE!

Bouvier defines “date” to mean, “The designation or indication in an instrument of writing
of the time AND PLACE when and WHERE it was made.” More: “Written instruments generally
take effect FROM THE DAY OF THEIR DATE, but the actual day of execution may be shown,
though different from that which the instrument bears.”

Black’s convenient definition of “date” does not include THE PLACE WHERE THE
INSTRUMENT IS EXECUTED: “The specification or mention, in a written instrument, of the
time (day, month and year) when it was made (EXECUTED).” (Parentheses in original)

Black’s defines “executed” as “COMPLETED: CARRIED INTO FULL EFFECT; already
done or performed; SIGNED; taking effect immediately; NOW IN EXISTENCE or in possession;
CONVEYING AN IMMEDIATE RIGHT OR POSSESSION. Act or course of conduct carried
to completion. Term imports idea that NOTHING REMAINS TO BE DONE.”

The PLACE at which a written instrument is executed is of extreme significance to its
effect. For example, a statute enacted by the California legislature may have great effect on the
lives of Californians…but none on Oregonians. By deleting “place” as an element of the definition
of “date”, Black’s, the ‘official’ lawyers dictionary, minimizes the importance of “place” while
diverting attention away from its significance.


The birth certificate ‘creates’ an artificial entity. In the beginning that entity is merely a
name, attached to which are other names of state-certified parents, doctors, informants and

The certificate is a written instrument created by a ‘registrar’ who is an employee/agent of
a ‘jurisdiction’ of the place in which the certificate is created. Neither the registrar nor his
principal created the human baby who is merely grist for the certifying process. The only things
bureaucrats can create are artificial entities and ‘legal’ fictions.

A birth certificate is EXECUTED by signing, filing and recording it, which constitutes the
act of wholly bringing the certificate (and the artificial entity it creates) into separate (distinct,
unique) being. The subject matter of the written instrument (certificate) is the live birth of an
infant. But it is not the live birth that is EXECUTED by signing, filing and recording the
certificate. That had already been accomplished, usually several days before the filing, by
conception and gestation, consummated by a child being born. Neither the state nor its registrar
had anything to do with ‘executing’ the live birth of the child.

The “DATE” (specification in the written instrument of the time when it was executed) is
the day, month and year on which the certificate was signed and filed; i.e., the time it executed;
when the ‘official name’/artificial entity/record, mentioned in the certificate was wholly brought
into separate existence. In other words, by Black’s SECOND DEFINITION…the DATE of
BIRTH of the record/entity.

Natural persons (real, live, flesh and blood people) have birthdays which commemorate

Only state-certified NAMES have BIRTHDATES or DATES OF BIRTH! There is
nothing about these DATES in the nature of commemoration or memorial; nothing happy, sad, or
otherwise emotional about them. Such DATES OF BIRTH are merely cold, dispassionate facts
which testify to the time and place of birth of the certificate.

Except when he is applying for a benefit that is made available only to artificial,
state-certified persons, an individual is free to go by any name that pleases him. He is under no
legal or moral compulsion to use the name attributed to him on a birth certificate. However, if he
uses that name, or a similar variation of it, he should be very careful in separating the two; the
natural and artificial creatures. He must remember: HE IS NOT THE NAME AND THE NAME

For example…when he is acting ‘as attorney’ for the artificial being, he should provide its
BIRTHDATE when required by business dealings. Alternatively, when he wishes to enjoy the
Rights inherent in natural individuals, he will want to distinguish between DATES and days…and
never state that his BIRTHDATE is the same as his birthday. The safest course is to avoid
situations (such as applying for or using benefits) where the giving of a BIRTHDATE may be
‘innocently’ construed as intent to obligate the natural person.

Not too many decades ago, birth certificates were generally perceived as innocuous and
harmless. Most people believe them to be beneficial in that they established reliable records for
genealogies, and assisted in expediting inheritances, probate matters, and the like. Few people
were ALARMED by sinister implications surrounding birth certificates…or the potential for abuse
inherent in them. It was this very absence of fear or concern that permitted them to eventually be
used against us. NOBODY WAS WATCHING! Nobody was warning their children about the
dangers of birth certificates. Nobody was educating the people on how they could be used as
‘government weapons against the people’ …or how the people could defend themselves from such

And today, most people still BELIEVE that birth certificates are harmless…and beneficial.

The danger with birth certificates is that, with just a little indoctrination by parents and
government schools, most people confuse the two entities involved (natural person and artificial
person). They do this primarily as a result of being trained from childhood to believe the DATE
OF BIRTH is synonymous with the day of birth. After a while most people cannot distinguish
between the name and their mortal being. They say, “I am John Smith” more frequently than they
will say “My name is ‘John Smith'”. It is this indoctrinated inability to distinguish between the two
that gets people in serious trouble.

They enter into adhesion contracts with ‘government’ agencies, that strip them of the
ability to exercise natural rights, and obligate them to all manner of demeaning servitude.

Black’s defines “ADHESION CONTRACT” as a:
“Standardized contract form offered to consumers of goods and SERVICES on essentially ‘take it
or leave it’ basis without affording consumer realistic opportunity to bargain and under such
conditions that consumer cannot obtain desired product or SERVICES except by acquiescing in
form contract. Distinctive feature of adhesion contract is that weaker party has no realistic choice
as to its terms.”

An intractable system of ‘governance’ has developed by which it is made difficult for the
natural person to exist, much less thrive, except by contract with ‘government’ agencies.
Adhesion contracts seem to be required of him to own and drive a car, own or rent property,
acquire food, gasoline…and most critically, to obtain the ‘government’ federal reserve notes
(“cash”) necessary to secure these ‘benefits’.

Every such ‘benefit’ is made available only to artificial, state-chartered persons. To prove
that one is eligible for the benefits, he must produce a BIRTHDATE and often even the certificate
(instrument) that certifies the DATE given is accurate.

Do you see what happens? The contractor provides, not the DATE OF BIRTH of the
certificate, but his BIRTHDAY. The bureaucrat never argues, even though the face of the
certificate proves the applicant is lying. (The consumer is always right)! The bureaucrat merely
pushes the adhesion contract across the counter for the applicant’s signature. The contract is
executed, and the natural person, who by association with the DATE OF BIRTH of an artificial
entity binds and obligates himself to whatever onerous specific performance will be required of
the contractor.

By submitting a BIRTHDATE, the contract ADHERES to the hapless individual.
Invariably, one condition of such contracts is that, should any controversies arise, the applicant
agrees to let the matter be arbitrated in the “company courts”. Neither natural rights nor
‘constitutional rights’ are issues, nor are they permitted expression in such courts.


End of Background

Original posting of “Baby’s with no birth certificates nor social security numbers begins below.

Babies without Social Security Numbers &
without Birth Certifications (Birth Certificates)
Making the Decision:

This essay is the result of an encouragement by my dad, who was, to some
degree, responsible for the status of my daughter, now over two years old. In
conversations with my father since the birth of my daughter, he thought it might be
beneficial to others to share my hospital experience with those who may be
wondering about such matters. Having been talked’ into sharing my experience, I
take up pen (now computer) to share those thoughts that led up to birthing a baby
girl who holds no Social Security number nor any county (government) issued Birth
Certification’ (Birth Certificate), and to share the events within the hospital in
refusing the allowance of these government identifications.

The decision to do this, although easy in the end, was somewhat of a
torturous path to travel. I have two children, a boy of several years and now a
daughter. Even before my son was born, my father had spoke with me about various
topics dealing with the devious nature of government. Although at that time I was in
my early twenties and believed, as I thought most American’s believed, that our
government was a champion of the under dog, the oppressed and those in need. I
did not feel that our government would intentionally take advantage of our fellow

When my father talked with me about the transgressions of government at
Ruby Ridge and at Waco, Texas, I could not help but think that he had taken a walk
off the map. Our government would not murder innocent people, especially children,
as he was saying took place at Waco. I did not think he was intentionally lying, dad
does not lie, but I did think that he was wholly mistaken. In my mind, I had
rationalized that our government had some justified reason to go after those
people’, even if that reason wasn’t readily apparent.

My father, despite my beliefs, kept the conversation alive from time to time,
sharing information and showing me things he had discovered about the actions and
coverup in which government agents & officials were involved. Apparently to
maintain the status quo’ within society.

Examining for myself the evidence that my dad presented to me for my
review caused a shift in my perception about our government. This was evidence,
not, not conjecture and not the opinion of my father. It was being collected and
presented by many rational people, some of them within the law enforcement

Whether or not it is intentional, the lack of education in our public school
system taught me well to believe in the goodness and humanity of our government.
The dilemma in which I was caught, was a knowledge that 1) my father would not
intentionally mislead me; 2) that my father is not a stupid man who is easily swayed,
either by self serving patriots nor by government; 3) that my father and my
government were in direct conflict on a number of critical matters and; 4) that if my
father was sufficiently concerned to keep bringing up government actions, it was
time for me to conduct my own independent investigation. Primarily to solidify in
my own mind which story to believe. The difference between what I wanted to
believe and the evidence being presented to me could not co-exist in my mind. In
determining the actual truth I could lay to rest the conflict occurring in my mind and
maybe make my dad eat crow.

And so I began doing some research of my own into some of the premises
dad had been putting forth. Premises that went far and beyond the events of Ruby
Ridge and Waco, Texas. I read books, surfed the Internet, investigated our
country’s founding documents, examined the interpretation of our founding
documents in court decisions, paying special attention to the burdens of citizenship
of both the State Citizen, and the United States Citizen. I must admit, that as I began
this trek, I was not even aware that there was a clear difference between citizens of
a State, and citizens of the United States. However, I was to learn that, as put forth
in the Slaughterhouse Cases (a supreme court decision), Americans do not
necessarily hold both citizenship classes, and there is considerable difference
between the burdens of each. I examined old history and law books and compared
them to current ones.

To my surprise, dad had been correct in each and every assertion he had
made. The commercial burdens’ of the United States citizens were the means by
which corporate government was taking the earnings and property from this class of
citizenship. Yet, it is not the purpose of this document to explain those matters in
detail, only to provide sufficient background that the reader will understand my
decision of citizenship for my daughter.

After engaging in considerable reading and research I had came to understand
that those of us holding a social security number, driver’s license, county issued
birth certificate, marriage license, or any other permit or license were being duped
by our government. Duped into entering into a contract which we no obligation to
enter. A contract which gives corporate government power and control over our
lives. We are being tricked into believing we are a free people when we are
anything but free. All of the above mentioned documents bind us to a jurisdiction
that has expanded beyond its constitutionally granted ten mile square allotment in
order to enslave the American people and hold us as surety for the national debt.

The research provided a realization that the county issued birth certificate and
federal social security number were a contractual means for the government to make
living souls into corporate entities (what we call a legal fiction) in order to gain
control of our lives and property. These contractual obligations make us subject to
the jurisdiction of the corporate United States and the Uniform Commercial Code,
of which almost all of our current law is based on. Taking note that there is a
difference between these united States (this refers to the sovereign States of the
republic that joined together to form a Union) and the United States ( a corporation
created by an act of Congress: 16 United States Statutes at Large 419; FORTY
FIRST CONGRESS, SESSION III; CHAPTER 62, 1871). This act created a
corporate UNITED STATES, a completely separate entity from the Republic of
these united States of America. In short, it forms a means by which the American
people may be tricked.

And believe me, I understand more than you know the reaction you may have
to such statements. I had them when my father was sharing this information with
me. As I have previously stated, I did not believe it possible for our grand’ and
great’ government to be capable of such devious actions. It was very hard for me to
fathom so many government officials, military personnel (to some extent), and
police officers (to some extent) were either being bought off through employment
and benefits, or intimidated (frightened) so badly they would sell out their own
people as well as their own children and families. I had believed in the checks and
balances put in place by our founding fathersand designed into our government
structure in a way that would never allow for such mass deceit of the people. Or so I

Although it was my father who was the catalyst for research, it was the
research itself that brought me to understanding and then to feel at least some
responsibility for the ignorance of others in my life. How could I, or for that
matter, how could anyone turn their backs from the truth of what is occurring
right now in our country? While in the beginning I thought that there was probably
only a 10% chance my father was correct, I had learned he was 100% correct, and
knowing this would not allow me to continue as I always had, believing that
government would do the honorable thing. I could no longer take that chance with
those I love. My father had apologized to me and my brother, stating that if he knew
as a young man what he knows now, neither of us would have had government
issued birth certificates nor social security numbers. Now, as a parent with
knowledge and understanding, it is my turn to step up to the plate.

Thus, the decision to birth my daughter without acquiring a government
issued birth certification or social security number was an easy one. Even when my
choice was based upon the partial and incomplete facts that were available to me at
the time I made this decision. In my heart and mind there just really wasn’t any
other choice because I wanted my daughter to enjoy the freedom that so many
Americans died to provide at the beginning of our county. To enjoy a freedom that
has been lost through ignorance by so many Americans. I did not want to sell my
daughter into slavery just to save a few dollars on my income taxes. I realize that
these statements may be inflammatory to some, but I feel confident that if you do
your homework and research in this matter, you will change your perspective and
agree that I have made the best possible decision on behalf of my daughter.

Unfortunately, I had not been as well informed when my son was born. Oh, I
had the opportunity to be informed, I chose not to be informed, not to believe. As I
once read:

“The mark of a stupid man is not that he does not know,
it is that he chooses not to know!

As such I will be changing my son’s status as soon as possible, given what I now
know. My husband and I will avoid asking the government for any kind of
assistance be it medical, income, retirement, or housing. These are the ways the
government traps individuals in the claws of its corporate jurisdiction, by getting
you to contract with them. Government engineers the crisis and then provides a
mediocre solution, if you will just contract with them, and give them jurisdiction
over your life. My children will learn to be responsible for themselves and if they
need help, to lean on those who truly care about them, rather than depend on the
government to take care of them. The government is not the parent nor part of my
family and should not be responsible for me or my children. It is not right for me or
my children to expect other hard working people, trying to raise their family, to
support mine. A lesson learned from my father.

Determining the consequences:

Now, that the decision had been made to avoid contracting with the
government on my daughter’s behalf, I needed to check into aspects of her life that
will be of immediate concern upon her birth. Both of my children would be taking
advantage of public education. I had to check with the school to find out if a social
security number was required for enrollment into school – it was not. I also checked
to see if the hospital birth certificate was adequate documentation to enroll a child
into school, and I found that the hospital issued birth certificate is adequate
documentation for the school.

The hospital and birth day (never allow the use of the term
“Birth Date):

After determining this, I was ready to proceed with my plans concerning my
daughter’s citizenship status. After having a baby it is standard policy for hospital
staff to bring in paperwork to be filled out and completed by the parents, to get the
newborn a social security number. I simply refused to fill it out or sign anything to
do with social security, being polite but firm. The person in charge of getting this
paperwork filled out and turned in, did attempt to pressure me by stating that when
grown my daughter will not be able to work or conduct any personal business
without that number. I politely responded that she was misinformed and that I was
certain that my daughter needed no permission from the government to carry out the
things she will do in her life. In one last attempt on the Social Security number I was
told that a social security card would be much more difficult to obtain later. I
informed her that didn’t matter to me and she went on to the next thing, the birth
certificate. Again I refused to sign or authorize anything to do with a government
birth record. This lady and I went through a similar discussion as with the social
security number. She told me that I would have difficulty proving my child’s identity
and enrolling her in school. I informed her that I had checked into that matter and
that neither a social security number or the county birth certificate is required to
enroll in school. If necessary, I could sign an affidavit as to my daughter’s identity
and status until she was old enough to sign one of her own.

With this, the lady folded and indicated that she didn’t want to argue with me.
The important thing to realize here is that both of these documents are contracts
which create a disability (a liability or obligation) upon your child. Not to put too
fine a point on it, but these contracts with government lack full disclosure and/or
equal consideration. (Necessary elements to a legally binding agreement.)
Additionally, they are accomplished under fraud and deception by virtue of the lack
of full disclosure. These contractual obligations, if entered into, give the
government control of your child, making the government the parent and you the
babysitter. In short, this is the legal process: 1) The Birth Certification is registered
with the bureau of vital statistics; 2) Whenever you “register (not record) anything
in any “public registry you have placed the object identified (in this case your
child) into international commerce and transferred “legal title to the government,
retaining only “equitable title to yourself. You may use’ the registered item, but
is not your property, you have transferred it to the government. Thus, when you
register your children, as is done with the issuance of a birth certification’, you
have given the government legal title, retaining equitable title to yourself. This is
why the government may now take the children and place them wherever they wish.
They are protecting their legal property. Check it out for yourself. Mary’s book is a
good place to begin. Available at

The benefits:

At the end of my hospital stay I walked out with a citizen of the Republic of
California, instead of a United States citizen. As an individual outside corporate
jurisdiction, she will have no taxable income, this benefit[???]’ being reserved for
those citizens inside corporate jurisdiction. She will not pay social security, another
benefit’ for those citizens inside a corporate jurisdiction. She will not have a drivers
license, nor vehicle registration for her car, both are requirements for those under
corporate [commercial] jurisdiction, as such they do not apply to her. She will be
completely and totally responsible for herself, the first requirement of freedom. No
social security, no disability compensation, no workman’s compensation, etc. It
does not mean that she can not have these benefits, it just means that she will have
to purchase them privately, but not from government.

As her parents, we cannot claim her on our income taxes. This is because
government has no responsibility for her, as such they can not claim a need for
collection or deduction on her behalf. As stated, she is outside the control and
jurisdiction of corporate government. It is important to note here that she is not
outside the law (of the Republic), but she has no connection (contractual nexus) to
corporate commercial law of the corporate United States. She is not in that

Obviously, there is much I will need to teach her in order to prepare her to
protect the freedom and status of citizenship she will enjoy. But after all, is that not
what parenting is all about? It will be a long road and I suspect it will require my
husband and I to keep up with the changes government may institute to trap the
ignorant and unwary. There is a quote from an author that I admire that is very
applicable here…

“Freedom is easily lost. All it takes is willful indifference. – Terry Goodkind

For myself, I have determined that I am not going to be one of the willfully
indifferent Americans that watches freedom slip away just because the changes
taking place do not seem to affect the everyday affairs of my life. I am wise enough
to understand that although it is not my ox that is gored today, if I allow my
neighbors ox to be gored, it is only a matter of time until it is mine. In a free society,
all we have to protect us, from the power of corrupt government, is each other. The
noose is tightening around our necks, and because of our own ignorance and our
own indifference, our rights have been usurped, because there is an entity out there
that is willing to wait the amount of time it takes for those who knew of the dangers
of a strong central government to forget, or give up or disappear through age and
death. I think, that there has been a general lack of concern by most Americans that
exists because of a general belief that those who founded America had finally put
something in place to protect those who would come after. Unfortunately, I think we
have become much too complacent, I know that I was… for a while. We have lost
our ability to see what absolute power is and what it looks like. It is a patient,
sneaky, devious, and evil foe, and it waits for the moment when there is no true
citizens of the Republic left for our Constitution to protect, at which time the
Constitution dies for lack of representation. My daughter is one of those who stands
in the way of that occurring, because she is a true citizen of the Republic of the
united States of America.

I have opened my private life and share this information with you for
whatever value it may have. For now, I wish to remain anonymous, simply because I
do not trust the government. Citizens, like my daughter, represent the greatest threat
to the total take over of our country and lives. And, remembering Waco, I do not
wish to place her (and us as a family) at undue risk.

Affidavit and Assertion of a Foreign Neutral

An interesting read on the perpetual state of National Emergencies we have lived under since 1933 and how that relates to some of the seemingly unconstitutional actions taken by government over the years. I will post both articles here instead of separating.

(Blog Master’s Note) This piece will be divided into two parts, in the first part is the history of the national emergency’ and the powers given to the President while we are in an emergency. For those worried about S. 1867, the President under the emergency can have anyone, or group, arrested indefinitely by signing an Executive Order with that stated as the objective, and all with out Congress. I find no evidence that S.1867 is a threat. Although not covered thoroughly, the national emergency’ began with the Civil War and gave Lincoln extra-ordinary powers. I was surprised that Kucinich authored H.R. 2990, to do away with the Federal Reserve, the Bill mentions the national emergency’ throughout. the second part Austin gives remedy for the court system using All Capital Letter Names for defendants.







We are going to begin with a series of documents which are representative of the documents contained in this Report. We will be quoting from, in many cases, Senate and Congressional reports, hearings before National Emergency Committees, Presidential Papers, Statutes at Large, and the United States Code.

The first exhibit is taken from a book written by Carl Brent Swisher American Constitutional Development, A complete constitutional history, from the British colonies to the Truman era. Let’s read the first paragraph. It says,

We may well wonder in view of the precedents now established, said Charles E. Hughes, (Supreme Court Justice) in 1920, whether constitutional government as heretofore maintained in this Republic could survive another great war even victoriously waged.

How could that happen? Surely, if we go out and fight a war and win it, we’d have to end up stronger than the day we started, wouldn’t we? Justice Hughes goes on to say,

The conflict known as the World War had 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.

What is this man talking about when he speaks of war statutes in effect and emergency organizations still in operation?

In 1933, Congressman Beck, speaking from the Congressional Record, states,

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 is saying that, of all the damnable heresies that ever existed, this doctrine of emergency has got to be the worst, because once Congress declares an emergency, there is no Constitution. He goes on to say,

But the Constitution of the [u]nited 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.

What bill is Congressman Beck talking about? In 1933, the House passed the Farm Bill by a vote of more than three to one. Again, we see the doctrine of emergency. Once an emergency is declared, there is no Constitution.

The CAUSE and EFFECT of the doctrine of emergency is the subject of this Report. In 1973, in Senate Report 93-549 (93rd Congress, 1st Session, 1973), the first sentence reads, Since March the 9th, 1933, the united States has been in a state of declared national emergency.

Let’s go back to Exhibit 1 just before this. What did that say? It says that if a national emergency is declared, there is no Constitution. Now, let us return to Exhibit 2. Since March the 9th of 1933, the United States has been, in fact, in a state of declared national emergency.

Referring to the middle of this exhibit:

This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional processes. Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens

This situation has continued uninterrupted since the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719

In the introduction to Senate Report 93-549:

A majority of the people of the united States have lived all their lives under emergency rule.

Remember, this report was produced in 1973. The introduction goes on to say:

For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency.

The introduction continues:

And, in the united States, actions taken by the government in times of great crisis have from, at least, the Civil War  in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency.

How many people were taught that in school? How could it possibly be that something which could suspend our Constitution would not be taught in school? Amazing, isn’t it?

Where does this come from? Is it possible that, in our Constitution, there could be some section which could contemplate what these previous documents are referring to? In Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution of the united States of America, we find 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.

Habeas Corpus the Great Writ of Liberty (Latin: you have the body.). This is the writ which guarantees that the government cannot charge us and hold us with any crime, unless they follow the procedure of due process of law. This writ also says, in effect, that the privilege of due process of law cannot be suspended, and that the government cannot not operate its arbitrary prerogative power against We the People. But we see that the great Writ of Liberty can, in fact, under the Constitution, be suspended when an invasion or a rebellion necessitates it.

In the 5th Amendment to the Constitution it says:

No Person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise Infamous Crime, unless on a Presentment or Indictment of a Grand Jury, except in Cases arising in the Land or Naval forces or in the Militia, when in actual Service in Time of War or public Danger.

We reserved the charging power for ourselves, didn’t we? We didn’t give that power to the government. And we also said that the government would be powerless to charge one of the citizens or one of the peoples of the united States with a crime unless We, the People, through our grand jury, orders it to do so through an indictment or a presentment. And if We, the People, don’t order it, the government cannot do it. If it tried to do it, we would simply follow the Writ of Habeas Corpus, and they would have to release us, wouldn’t they? They could not hold us.

But let us recall that it says:

except in Cases arising in the Land or Naval forces or in the Militia, when in actual Service in Time of War or public Danger

We can see here that the framers of the Constitution were already contemplating times when there would be conditions under which it might be necessary to suspend the guarantees of the Constitution.

Also from Senate Report 93-549 and remember that our congressmen wrote these reports and these documents and they’re talking about these emergency powers and they say:

They are quite careful and restrictive on the power, but the power to suspend is specifically contemplated by the Constitution in the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Now, this is well known. This is not a concept that was not known to rulers for many, many years. The concepts of constitutional dictatorship went clear back to the Roman Republic. And there, it was determined that, in times of dire emergencies, yes, the constitution and the rights of the people could be suspended, temporarily, until the crisis, whatever its nature, could be resolved.

But once it was done, the Constitution, was to be returned to its peacetime position of authority. In France, the situation under which the constitution could be suspended is called the State of Siege. In Great Britain, it’s called the Defense of the Realm Acts. In Germany, in which Hitler became a dictator, it was simply called Article 48. In the United States, it is called the War Powers.

If that was, in fact, the case, and we are under a war emergency in this country, then there should be evidence of that war emergency in the current law that exists today. That means we should be able to go to the federal code known as the USC or United States Code, and find that statute, that law, in existence. If we went to the library today and picked up a copy of 12 USC Section 95b we will find a law 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 Subsection (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6th, 1917, as amended [12 USCS Sec. 95a], are hereby approved and confirmed. (Mar. 9, 1933, c. 1, Title 1, Sec. 1, 48 Stat. 1.).

Now, what does this mean? It means that everything the President or the Secretary of the Treasury has done since the Emergency Banking Act of March 9, 1933, (48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719), or anything that the President or the Secretary of the Treasury is hereafter going to do, is automatically approved and confirmed. Referring back to Exhibit 2, let us remember that, according to the Congressional Record of 1973, the United States has been in a state of national emergency since 1933. Then we realize that 12 USC, Section 95b is current law. This is the law that exists over these united States right this moment.

If that be the case, let us see if we can understand what is being said here. As every action, rule or law put into effect by the President or the Secretary of the Treasury since March the 4th of 1933 has or will be confirmed and approved, let us determine the significance of that date in history. What happened on March the 4th of 1933?

On March the 4th of 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was inaugurated as President of the United States. Referring to his inaugural address which was given at a time when the country was in the throes of the Great Depression, we read:

I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures 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.

On March the 4th, 1933, at his inaugural, President Roosevelt was saying that he was going to ask Congress for the extraordinary authority available to him under the War Powers Act. Let’s see if he got it.

On March the 5th, President Roosevelt asked for a special and extraordinary session of Congress in Proclamation 2038. He called for the special session of Congress to meet on March the 9th at noon. And at that Congress, he presented a bill, an Act, to provide for relief in the existing national emergency in banking and for other purposes.

In the enabling portion of that Act it 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.

What is the concept of the rule of necessity, referred to in the enabling portion of the Act as imperatively necessary speedily? The rule of necessity is a rule of law which states that necessity knows no law. A good example of the rule of necessity would be the concept of self-defense. The law says, Thou shalt not kill. But also know that, if you are in dire danger, in danger of losing your life, then you have the absolute right of self-defense. You have the right to kill to protect your own life. That is the ultimate rule of necessity.

Thus we see that the rule of necessity overrides all other law, and, in fact, allows one to do that which would normally be against the law. So it is reasonable to assume that the wording of the enabling portion of the Act of March 9, 1933, is an indication that what follows is something which will probably be against the law. It will probably be against the Constitution of the United States, or it would not require that the rule of necessity be invoked to enact it.

In the Act of March 9, 1933 it further states in Title 1, Section 1:

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.

Where have we read those words before?

This is the exact same wording as is found (Exhibit 5) today in Title 12, USC 95b. The language in Title 12, USC 95b is exactly the same as that found in the Act of March 9, 1933, Chapter 1, Title 1, Section 48, Statute 1. The Act of March 9, 1933, is still in full force and effect today. We are still under the Rule of Necessity. We are still in a declared state of national emergency, a state of emergency that has existed, uninterrupted, since 1933, or for over sixty years.

As you may remember, the authority to do this is conferred by Subsection (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended. What was the authority which was used to declare and enact the emergency in this Act? If we look at the Act of October 6, 1917 we see that at the top right-hand part of the page, it states that this was:

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

By the year 1917, the United States was involved in World War I; at that point, it was recognized that there were probably enemies of the United States, or allies of enemies of the United States, living within the continental borders of our nation in a time of war.

Therefore, Congress passed this Act which identified who could be declared enemies of the United States, and, in this Act, we gave the government total authority over those enemies to do with as it saw fit. We also see, however, in Section 2, Subdivision (c) in the middle, and again at the bottom of the page:

other than citizens of the united States.

The Act specifically excluded citizens of the united States, because we realized in 1917 that the citizens of the united States were not enemies. Thus, we were excluded from the war powers over enemies in this Act.

Section 5b of the same Act states:

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).

Again, we see here that citizens, and the transactions of citizens made wholly within the United States, were specifically excluded from the war powers of this Act. We, the People, were not enemies of our country; therefore, the government did not have total authority over us as they were given over our enemies.

It is important to draw attention again to the fact that citizens of the United States in October, 1917, were not called enemies. Consequently the government, under the war powers of this Act, did not have authority over us; we were still protected by the Constitution. Granted, over enemies of this nation, the government was empowered to do anything it deemed necessary, but not over us. The distinction made between enemies of the United States and citizens of the united States will become crucial later on Please note the distinction between United States, and that of united States.

In Section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933 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;

So we see that they are now going to amend Section 5 (b). Now let’s see how it reads after it’s amended. The amended version of Section 5 (b) reads (emphasis is ours):

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 ear markings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, by any person within the (united States) or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof. (NOTE: later we will discuss that jurisdiction for now please take note of this important point.)

What just happened? At as far as commercial, monetary or business transactions were concerned, the people of the united States were no longer differentiated from any other enemy of the United States.  We had lost that crucial distinction. We can see that the phrase which excluded transactions executed wholly within the united States has been removed from the amended version of Section 5 (b) of the Act of March 9, 1933, Section 2, and replaced with by any person within the united States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof’. 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. (NOTE: change of title now! Exactly whom does the President represent in this situation now??)

To summarize this critical point: On October the 6th of 1917, at the beginning of America’s involvement in World War 1, Congress passed a Trading with the enemy Act empowering the government to take control over any and all commercial, monetary or business transactions conducted by enemies or allies of enemies within our continental borders. That Act also defined the term enemy and excluded from that definition citizens of the united States.

In Section 5 (b) of this Act, we see that the President was given unlimited authority to control the commercial transactions of defined enemies, but we see that credits relating solely to transactions executed wholly within the united States were excluded from that controlling authority. As transactions wholly domestic in nature were excluded from authority,the government had no extraordinary control over the daily business conducted by the citizens of the united States, because we were certainly not enemies.

Citizens of the united States were not enemies of their country in 1917, and the transactions conducted by citizens within this country were not considered to be enemy transactions.But in looking again at Section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933, we can see that the phrase excluding wholly domestic transactions has been removed from the amended version and replaced with by any person within the united States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof’.

The people 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, We, the People became the same as the enemy, and were treated no differently. There was no longer any distinction.

It is important here to note that, in the Acts of October 6, 1917 and March 9, 1933, it states: during times of war or during any other national emergency declared by the President.

So we now see that the war powers not only included a period of war, but also a period of national emergency as defined by the President of the United States. When either of these two situations occur, 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.

What can the President do now to the We, the People, under this Section? He can do anything he wants to do. It’s purely at his discretion, and he can use any agency or any license that he desires to control it. This is called a constitutional dictatorship.

In Senate Document 93-549, Congress declared that a serious emergency exists, at: 48 Stat. 1. The exclusion of domestic transactions, formerly found in the Act, was deleted from Sect. 5 (b) at this time.

Our Congress wrote that in the year 1973.

Now let’s find out about the Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917. Quoting from a Supreme Court decision (Exhibit 9), Stoehr v. Wallace, 1921:

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. 1, Sect. 8, cl. 11. P. 241.

Remember your Constitution? Congress shall have the power to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal and make all rules concerning the captures on the land and the water of the enemies. ALL RULES.


If that be the case, let us look at the memorandum of law that now covers trading with the enemy, the Memorandum of American Cases and Recent English Cases on The Law of Trading With the Enemy, remembering that we are now the same as the enemy. In this memorandum, we read:

Every species of intercourse with the enemy is illegal. This prohibition is not limited to mere commercial intercourse. (Which means commercial intercourse amongst the American people in any form, to include procreation, is illegal and thereby, can only take place, when a License is issued , authorizing Americans to interact and do business with other Americans while at all times being held to be (presumptive) enemies of the state.) This is the case of The Rapid (1814).


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 standi in judicio. (Hence all statute or merchant law is copyright and foreign to be employed and used by the enemy

In other words, they have no personal rights at law in these Prize courts. This is the case of The Julia (1813).

In the next case, the case of The Sally (1814), we read the words:

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 belong 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. (Try operating your car on the public highways and by ways without licensing that car and yourself . . . they will seize that car and impound it to be sold at public auction., and you will go to jail as a Felon.)

Reading further in the memorandum, again from the case of The Rapid:

The law of prize is part of the law of nations. In it, a hostile character is attached to trade, independently of the character of the trader who pursues or directs it. Condemnation to the use of the captor is equally the fate of the property of the belligerent and of the property found engaged in anti-neutral trade. But a citizen or an ally may be engaged in a hostile trade, and thereby involve his property in the fate of those in whose cause he embarks.

Again from the memorandum:

The produce of the soil of the hostile territory, as well as other property engaged in the commerce of the hostile power, as the source of its wealth and strength, are always regarded as legitimate prize, without regard to the domicile of the owner.(Does summary seizure of property by the IRS come to mind? And this is why it became necessary for the American people to be declared the enemy of the state under the mere presumption of the Trading With the Enemy Act as amended in 1935, thereby, making all interests in the property of the American people a legitimate prize of a foreign corporation pretending to operate under the original constitution of the United States of America.)

From the case of The William Bagaley (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, lapse; payments to the enemy (except to agents in the united States appointed prior to the war and confirmed since the war) are illegal and void; all rights of an enemy to sue in the courts are suspended.

From Senate Report No. 113, in which we find An Act to Define, Regulate, and Punish Trading with the Enemy, and For Other Purposes, we read:

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 belligerents, for the power to grant such licenses, and therefore exemption from the operation of law, is given by the bill.

It says no trade can be conducted or no intercourse can be conducted without a license, because, by mere definition of the enemy, and under the prize law, all intercourse is illegal.

That was the first case we looked at, wasn’t it? So once we were declared enemies, all intercourse, commercial or otherwise became illegal for us. The only way we could now do business or any type of legal intercourse was to obtain permission from our government by means of a license. (License of Cosmetology for example, or be charged and declared an enemy felon without a license to perform our chosen or God given craft.) We are certainly required to have a Social Security Card, which is a license to work, and a Driver’s License, which gives the government the ability to restrict travel; all business in which we engage ourselves requires us to have a license, does it not?

Returning once again to the Memorandum of Law: (Exhibit 13)

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 v. Jones (28 Texas, 294), there cannot be a war for arms and a peace for 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. The question is: Once the war terminates, the property must be returned  mustn’t it?

The property that is confiscated, and the belligerent right of the government during the period of war, must be returned when the war terminates. Let us take the case of a ship in harbor; war breaks out, and the Admiral says, I’m seizing your ship. Can you stop him? No. But when the war is over, the Admiral must return your ship to you. This point is important to bear in mind, for we will return to, and expand upon, it later in the report.

Reading from Senate Document No. 43, Contracts Payable in Gold written in 1933:

The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called, ownership is only by virtue of government, i. e., law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.

Who owns all the property? Who owns the property you call yours? Who has the authority to mortgage property? Let us continue with a Supreme Court decision, United States v. Russell:

Private property, the Constitution provides, shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.

That is the peacetime clause, isn’t it? Further (emphasis added),

Extraordinary and unforeseen occasions arise, however, beyond all doubt, in cases of extreme necessity in time of war or of immediate and impending public danger, in which private property may be impressed into the public service, or may be seized or appropriated to public use, or may even be destroyed without the consent of the owner.

This quote, and indeed this case, provides a vivid illustration of the potential power that government can and will wield once no longer bound by constitutional restrictions.

Now, let us return to the period of time after March 4, 1933, and take a close look at what really occurred. On March 4, 1933, in his inaugural address, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt asked for the authority of the war powers, and called a special session of Congress for the purpose of having those powers conferred to him.

On March the 2nd, 1933, however, we find that Herbert Hoover had written a letter to the Federal Reserve Board of New York, asking them for recommendations for action based on the over-all situation at the time. The Federal Reserve Board responded with a resolution which they had adopted, an excerpt from which follows:

Resolution Adopted By The Federal Reserve Board Of New York. Whereas, in the opinion of the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the continued and increasing withdrawal of currency and gold from the banks of the country has now created a national emergency.

In order to fully appreciate the significance of this last quote, we must recall that, in 1913, The Federal Reserve Act was passed, authorizing the creation of a central bank, the thought of which had already been noted in the Constitution. The basic idea of the central bank was, among other things, for it to act 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 we would be issued a note which said, in effect, that, at any time we desired, we could bring that note back to the bank and be given back our gold which we had deposited.

Until 1933, that agreement, that contract between the Federal Reserve and its depositors, was honored. Federal Reserve notes, prior to 1933, were indeed redeemable in gold. After 1933, the situation changed drastically. In 1933, during the depths of the Depression, at the time when We, the People, were struggling to stay alive and keep our families fed, the bankers began to say, People are coming in now, wanting their gold, wanting us to honor this contract we have made with them to give them their gold on demand, and this contractual obligation is creating a national emergency.

How could that happen? Reading from the Public Papers of Herbert Hoover:

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.

In other words, President Roosevelt was urged to close down the banking system and make it unavailable for a short period of time. What was to happen during that period of time?

Reading again from the Federal Reserve Board resolution, we find a 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 earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency***.

Now, in any nominal usage of the American language, the standard accepted meaning of a series of three asterisks after a quotation means that what follows also must be quoted exactly, doesn’t it? If it’s not, that’s a fraudulent use of the American language. At that point marked by the red asterisk (*) above,  began, what did the original Act of October 6,1917 say?

Referring back to the remainder of Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917 says:

(other than credits relating solely to transactions to be executed whollywithin the [u]nited States).

This portion of Section 5 (b) specifically prohibited the government from taking control of We, the People’s money and transactions, didn’t it?

However, let us now read the remainder of Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended on March 9,1933 (Exhibit 17):

by any person within the united States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

Comparing the original with the amended version of Section 5 (b), we can see the full significance of the amended version, wherein the exclusion of domestic transactions from the powers of the Act was deleted, and any person became subject to the extraordinary powers conferred by the Act. Further, we can now see that the usage of the original text where the red asterisk is (above), it was, in all likelihood, meant to be deliberately misleading, if not fraudulent in nature.

Further, in the next section of the Federal Reserve Board’s proposal, we find that anyone violating any provision of this Act will be fined not more than $10,000.00, or imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both. A severe enough penalty at any time, but one made all the more harsh by the economic conditions in which most Americans found themselves at the time. And where were these alterations and amendments to be found? Not from the government itself, initially; no, they are first to be found in a proposal from the Federal Reserve Board of New York, a banking institution.

Let us recall the chronology of events: Herbert Hoover, in his last days as President of the united States, asked for a recommendation from the Federal Reserve Board of New York, and they responded with their proposals. We see that President Hoover did not act on the recommendation, and believed the actions were neither justified nor necessary (Appendix, Public Papers of Herbert Hoover, p. 1088). Let us see what happened; remember on March 4, 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was inaugurated as President of the united States. On March 5, 1933, President Roosevelt called for an extraordinary session of Congress to be held on March 9, 1933, as can be seen in Exhibit:

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 communication as may be made by the Executive.

On the next day, March 6 ,1933, President Roosevelt issued Proclamation 2039, which has been included in this report, we find the following:

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

Right at the beginning, we have a problem. And the problem rests in the question of who should be the judge of whether or not my gold, on deposit at the Federal Reserve, with which I have a contract which says, in effect, that I may withdraw my gold at my discretion, is being withdrawn by me in an unwarranted manner. Remember, the people of the united States were in dire economic straits at this point. If I had gold at the Federal Reserve, I would consider withdrawing as much of my gold as I needed for my family and myself a warranted action. But the decision was not left up to We, the People.

It is also important to note that it is stated that the gold is being withdrawn for the purpose of hoarding. The significance of this phrase becomes clearer when we reach Proclamation 2039, wherein the term hoarding is inserted into the amended version of Section 5 (b). The term, hoarding, was not to be found in the original version of Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917. It was a term which was used by President Roosevelt to help support his contention that the United States was in the middle of a national emergency, and his assertion that the extraordinary powers conferred to him by the War Powers Act were needed to deal with that emergency.

Let us now go on to the middle of Proclamation 2039, at the top of the next page, we find the following:

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 be may prescribed, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transaction in foreign exchange and the export, hoarding, melting, or ear markings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency . . .

exactly as was first proposed by the Federal Reserve Board of New York (Exhibit 31).

If we return to 48 Statute 1 (Exhibit 17), Title 1, Section 1, we find that the amended Section 5 (b) with its added phrase:

by any person within the united States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

Is this becoming clearer as to exactly what happened? On March 5, 1933, President Roosevelt called for an extra session of Congress, and on March 6, 1933, issued Proclamation 2039 . On March 9th, Roosevelt issued Proclamation 2040. We looked at Proclamation 2039(a), let’s see what Roosevelt is talking about in Proclamation 2040:

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.

We see that Roosevelt declared a national emergency and a bank holiday. Let’s read on:

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, 1 91 7, as amended, are approved and confirmed;

This section of the Proclamation clearly states that all proclamations heretofore or hereafter issued by the President are approved and confirmed, citing the authority of section 5 (b). The key words here being all and approved. Further:

Whereas, said national emergency still continues, and it is necessary to take further measures extending beyond March 9, 1933, in order to accomplish such purposes

We again clearly see that there is more to come, evidenced by the phrase, further measures extending beyond March 9, 1933 .  Could this be the beginning of a new deal? Possibly a one-sided deal. How long can this type of action continue? Let’s find out.

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 there under are hereby continued in full force and effect until further proclamation by the President.

We now understand that the Proclamation 2039, of March 6, 1933 and Proclamation 2040 of March 9, 1933, will continue until such time as another proclamation is made by the President. Note that the term the President is not specific to President Roosevelt; it is a generic term which can equally apply to any President from Roosevelt to the present, and beyond.

So here we have President Roosevelt declaring a national emergency (we are now beginning to realize the full significance of those words) and closing the national banks for two days, by Executive Order. Further, he states that the Proclamations bringing about these actions will to continue in full force and effect until such time as the President, and only the President, changes the situation.

It is important to note the fact that these Proclamations were made on March 6, 1933, three days before Congress was due to convene its extra session. Yet references are made to such things as the amended Section 5 (b), which had not yet even been confirmed by Congress. President Roosevelt must have been supremely confident of Congress giving confirmation of his actions. And indeed, we find that confidence was justified. *** For on March 9, 1933, without individual Congressmen even having the opportunity to read for themselves the bill they were to confirm, Congress did indeed approve the amendment of Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917. ***

Referring to the Public Papers of Herbert Hoover:

That those speculators and insiders were right was plain enough later on. This first contract of the moneychangers with the New Deal netted those who removed their money from the country a profit of up to 60 percent when the dollar was debased.

Where had our gold gone? Our gold had already been moved offshore! The gold was not in the banks, and when We, the People lined up at the door attempting to have our contracts honored, the deception was exposed. What happened then? The laws were changed to prevent us from asking again, and the military was brought in to protect the Federal Reserve. We, the People, were declared to be the same as a public enemy in fact, and placed under military authority.

Going now to another section of 48 Statute 1:

Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary of the Treasury such action is necessary to protect the currency system of the (U)nited 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. Notice now to whom we refer as owning the money!

By this Statute, everyone was required to turn in their gold. Failure to do so would constitute a violation of this provision, such violation to be punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000.00 and imprisonment for not more than ten years. It was a seizure. Whose property may be seized without due process of law under the Trading With the Enemy Act? The enemy’s. Whose gold was seized? Ours  the gold of the people of the united States. Are you seeing the fraud here now?

From the Roosevelt Papers:

During this banking holiday it was at first believed that some form of scrip 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 institutions, but this authority was not to become effective until March 10th. In many cities, the printing of these certificates was actually begun, but after the 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 banknotes which could be based on any sound assets owned by banks.

Roosevelt could now issue emergency currency under the Act of March 9, 1933 and this currency was to be called Federal Reserve bank notes. From Title 4 of the Act of March 9, 1933:

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’ acceptances 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 is this saying? It says (emphasis is ours): Upon the deposit with the Treasurer of the United States, (a) of any direct obligation of the united States . That is a direct obligation of the united States? It’s a treasury note, which is an obligation upon whom? Upon We, the People, to perform. It’s a taxpayer obligation, isn’t it?

Title 4 goes on: or (b) of any notes, drafts, bills of exchange or bankers’ acceptances . .

What’s a note? If you go to the bank and sign a note on your home, that’s a note, isn’t it? A note is a private obligation upon We, the People. And if the Federal Reserve Bank deposits either (a) public and/or (b) private obligation of We, the People, with the Treasury, the Comptroller of the currency will issue this circulating note endorsed in blank, duly registered and countersigned, an emergency currency based on the (a) public and/or (b) private obligations of the people of the united States.

In the Congressional Record of March 9, 1933, we find evidence that our congressmen didn’t even have individual copies of the bill to read, on which they were about to vote. A copy of the bill was passed around for approximately 40 minutes.

(To be Continued with Congressman McFadden made a comment ).

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 goes on to say:

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.

Keep in mind, here, that, prior to 1933, the Federal Reserve bank held our gold as security, in return for Federal Reserve gold notes which we could redeem at any time we wanted. Now, however, Congressman McFadden is asking if this proposed bill is a plan to change who’s going to hold the security, from the Federal Reserve to the Treasury.

Chairman Steagall’s response to Congressman McFadden’s question, again from the Congressional Record:

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.

We were backed by gold, and our gold was seized, wasn’t it? We were penniless, and now our money would be secured, not by gold, but by notes and obligations on which We, the People, were the collateral security.

Congressman McFadden then questioned,

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

Mr. Steagall replied,

Insofar as the provisions of this section are concerned, yes.

Does that sound familiar?

Next we hear from Congressman Britten, as noted in the Congressional Record:

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?

What is the collateral that underwrites the debt?

(Our negotiable signature or voluntary acceptance of debt instruments which represents our ability to produce goods and services into the indefinite future.) We have no rights nor privileges in Admiralty, we as a natural/biological party can’t even be acknowledged in admiralty proceedings, the court can’t ever acknowledge our presence. (Our assigned and colorable public vessel however does have such privileges and we MUST do commerce through this vessel, to do business in general.) Our rights remain in a separate and limited jurisdiction foreign to admiralty, which is also termed to be Civil in nature. Our ability to produce goods and services underwrites and monetizes all offers of unsecured debt made to us by the insolvent United States Inc. So called credit money once issued to a federal reserve bank as unsecured debt and in the form of federal reserve notes, become monitized the moment these as yet un-circulated notes pass from the fed bank, into our hands and we voluntarily accept them as legal tender.

Congressman Patman, speaking from the Congressional Record (Exhibit 40):

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.

It now is no wonder that credit became so available after the Depression. It was needed to back our monetary system. Our debts, our obligations, our homes, our jobs “œ To those who don’t understand the debtor scheme, we appear to be economic slaves for the system and held to a condition of involuntary bankruptcy and thereby, peonage.

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 Treasurer 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 Treasury was taken over by the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve Holding companies, the Depository Trust Co. and the CEDE Co., hold the assets.

To summarize briefly: On March 9,1933 the American people in all their domestic, daily, and commercial transactions became the same as the enemy if they were not joined in a limited public private joint venture with the United States Inc, the insolvent party in this joint venture.

And we know that current law, to this day, says that all proclamations issued heretofore or hereafter by the President or the Secretary of the Treasury are approved and confirmed by Congress.

On March 11, 1933, President Roosevelt, in his first radio Fireside Chat (Exhibit 42), makes the following statement:

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.

It was by this action that the Federal Reserve took over the Treasury and the banking system.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines the Bank Holiday of 1933 (Exhibit 42a) in the following words:

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. 883, 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 proclaimed by the President. 12 U.S.C.A. Sect. 95.

Take special note of the last sentence of this definition, especially the phrase, present law. The fact that banks are under regulation of the Treasury today, is evidence that the state of emergency still exists, by virtue of the definition. Not that, at this point, we need any more evidence to prove we are still in a declared state of national emergency.

From the Agricultural Adjustment Act of May 12,1933 (Exhibit 43):

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

This is the seizure of the agricultural industry by means of licensing authority.

In the first hundred days of the reign of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, similar seizures by licensing authority were successfully completed by the government over a plethora of other industries, among them transportation, communications, public utilities, securities, oil, labor, and all natural resources. The first hundred days of FDR saw the nationalization of the united States, its people and its assets. What has Bill Clinton talked about during his campaign and early presidency? His first hundred days.

Now, we know that they took over all contracts, for we have already read in Exhibit 22:

No contract is considered as valid as between enemies, at least so far as to give them a remedy in the courts of law of either government, and they have,

in the language of civil law, no ability to sustain a persona standi in judicio.

The enemy has no personal rights at law or statute. Therefore, we should expect that we would see in the statutes a time when the contract between the Federal Reserve and We, the People, in which the Federal Reserve had to give us our gold on demand, was made null and void.

Referring to House Joint Resolution 192 (June 5, 1933) :

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.

Indeed, 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 had deposited it.

Returning once again to the Roosevelt Papers:

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.

What was the broad powers? That was the War Powers, wasn’t it? And now we see the farm leaders asking President Roosevelt to use the same War Powers to take control of the agricultural industry. Well, needless to say, he did. We should wonder about all that took place at this conference, for it to result in the eventual acquiescence of farm leadership to the governmental take-over of their livelihoods.

Reading from the Agricultural Adjustment Act, May the 12th, Declaration of Emergency:

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.

Now here we see that he is saying that the agricultural assets support the national credit structure. Did he take the titles of all the land? Remember Contracts Payable in Gold? President Roosevelt needed the support, and agriculture was critical, because of all the millions of acres of farmland at that time, and the value of that farmland. The mortgage on that farmland was what supported the emergency credit. So President Roosevelt had to do something to stabilize the price of land and Federal Reserve Bank notes to create money, didn’t he? So he impressed agriculture into the public interest.

The farming industry was nationalized.

Continuing with the Agricultural Adjustment Act, Declaration of Emergency

It is hereby declared to be the public policy of Congress.

Referring now back to Prize Cases (1862) (2 Black, 674) (Exhibit 24):

But in defining the meaning of the term enemies’ property,’ we will be led into error if we refer to Fleta or Lord Coke for their definition of the word, enemy’. It is a technical phrase peculiar to prize courts, and depends upon principles of public policy as distinguished from the common law.

Once the emergency is declared, the common law is abolished, the Constitution is abolished and we fall under the absolute will of Government public policy.

All the government needs to continue is to have public opinion on their side. If public opinion can be kept, in sufficient degree, on the side of the government, statutes, laws and regulations can continue to be passed. The Constitution has no meaning. The Constitution is suspended. It has been for over 60 years. We’re not under law. Law has been abolished.

We’re under a system of public policy, (War Powers).

So when you go into that courtroom with your Constitution and the common law in your hand, what does that judge tell you? He tells you that you have no persona standi in judicio. You have no personal standing at law. He tells you not to bother bringing the Constitution into his court, because it is not a Constitutional court, but an executive tribunal operating under a totally different jurisdiction.

Statutory/admiralty courts have no jurisdiction over you personally unless you volunteer by traverse and grant personum jurisdiction out of ignorance. Judge Bork once made the comment in a public appearance that over 90% of the people in prison today, volunteered to be there. The named or charged party is never you. The named party is however, the colorable/fictional public vessel assigned to you bearing a bastardized version of your given name in styled in ALL UPPER CASE LETTERS.

This slight of administrative hand is the subtle process employed by the courts to cause you to traverse by answering as the vessel, rather than for the vessel as the vessels authorized representative. When in an admiralty proceeding and the vessel name is called and you erroneously answer in such manner that you believe you are the one being addressed, you have given yourself over to the court.

A quick suggestion in how to respond to a court proceeding in which your public vessel is of course the named party:

When the bastardized version of your name is called, you say nothing, but simply stand up and remain silent until spoke to. The judge will ask the obvious question: Are you JOHN Q DOE” You say: No, I’m not, I am however the authorized representative for the named party and public vessel JOHN Q DOE.

The judge will probably ask if you’re JOHN Q DOE’S attorney. You would say: No I’m not, I am however, the Master of this named and colorable Public Vessel JOHN Q DOE and am here to settle and honorably close this particular account. What is owed and who am I to make the check out to?

According to the judge, the above will of course vary to some degree and you’ll have to be prepared to deal with those variations. Understanding the debtor scheme is how you are going to be prepared to deal with a judge that will try to lead you into a jurisdictional traverse.

From Section 93-549:

Under this procedure we retain Government by operation of law special, temporary law, perhaps, but law nonetheless. The public may know the extent and the limitations of the powers that can be asserted, and the persons affected may be informed by the statute of their rights and their duties.

Again from 93-549, from the words of Mr. Katzenbach:

My recollection is that almost every executive order ever issued straddles on several grounds, but it almost always includes the Trading With the Enemy Act because the language of that act is so broad, it would justify almost anything.

Speaking on the subject of a challenge to the Act by the people, Justice Clark then says,

Most difficult from a standpoint of standing to sue. The Court, you might say, has enlarged the standing rule in favor of the litigant. But I don’t think it has reached the point, presently, that would permit many such cases to be litigated to the merits.

Senator Church then made the comment:

What you’re saying, then, is that if Congress doesn’t act to standardize, restrict, or eliminate the emergency powers, that no one else is very likely to get a standing in court to contest.

No persona standi in judicio no personal standing in the courts to challenge the Trading With the Enemy Act.

(Thereby, out of necessity and due to the above referenced denial of standing to sue, cause is given for relief, to rebut any and all presumption that this presenter is, or acts as an enemy of the foreign forum, the United States, an insolvent body corporate.)

Continuing with Senate Report 93-549:

The interesting aspect of the legislation lies in the fact that it created a permanent agency designed to eradicate an emergency condition in the sphere of agriculture.

These agencies, of which there are now thousands, and which now control every aspect of our lives, were ostensibly created as temporary agencies meant to last only as long as the national emergency. They have become, in fact, permanent agencies, as has the state of national emergency itself. As Franklin Delano Roosevelt said: We will never go back to the old order. That quote takes on a different meaning in light of what we have seen so far.

In Senate Report 93-549, we find a quote from Senator Church:

If the President can create crimes by fiat and without congressional approval, our system is not much different from that of the Communists, which allegedly threatens our existence.

We see on this same document, at the bottom right-hand side of the page, as a Title, the words,

Enormous Scope of Powers.A Time Bomb.

Remember, this is Congress’ own document, from the year 1973.

Most people might not look to agriculture to provide them with this type of information. But let us look at Title III of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which is also called the Emergency Farm Mortgage Act of 1933:

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.

From Section 43 of Exhibit 52:

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.

Remember that in the Constitution it states that Congress has the authority to coin all money and regulate the value thereof. How can it be then that the Executive branch is issuing an emergency currency, and quoting the Constitution as its authority to do so?

Under Section 1 of the same Act we find the following:

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 and 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

What is the Act of February 25, 1862? It is the Greenback Act of President Abraham Lincoln. Let us remember that, when Abraham Lincoln was elected and inaugurated, he didn’t even have a Congress for the first six weeks. He did not, however, call an extra session of Congress. He issued money, he declared war, he suspended habeas corpus, it was an absolute Constitutional dictatorship. There was not even a Congress in session for six weeks.

When Lincoln’s Congress came into session six weeks later, they entered the following statement into the Congressional record: The actions, rules, regulations, licenses, heretofore or hereafter taken, are hereby approved and confirmed. This is the exact language of March 9,1933 and Title 12, USC, Section 95 (b), today.

We now come to the question of how to terminate these extraordinary powers granted under a declaration of national emergency. We have learned that, in order for the extraordinary powers to be terminated, the national emergency itself must be cancelled. Reading from the Agricultural Act, Section 13:

This title shall cease to be in effect whenever the President finds and proclaims that the national economic emergency in relation to agriculture has been ended.

Whenever the President finds by proclamation that the proclamation issued on March 6, 1933 has terminated, it has to terminate through presidential proclamation just as it came into effect. Congress had already delegated all of that authority, and therefore is in no position to take it back.

In Senate Report 93-549, we find the following statement from Congress:

Furthermore, it would be largely futile task unless we have the President’s active collaboration. Having delegated this authority to the President  in ways that permit him to determine how long it shall continue, simply through the device of keeping emergency declarations alive  we now find ourselves in a position where we cannot reclaim the power without the President’s acquiescence. We are unable to terminate these declarations without the President’s signature, so we need a large measure of Presidential cooperation.

It appears that no President has been willing to give up this extraordinary power, and, if they will not sign the termination proclamation, the access to and usage of, extraordinary powers does not terminate. At least, it has not terminated for over 65 years.

Now, that’s no definite indication that a President from Bill Clinton on might not eventually sign the termination proclamation, but 65 years of experience would lead one to doubt that day will ever come by itself. But the question now to ask is this: How many times have We, the People, asked the President to terminate his access to extraordinary powers, or the situation on which it is based, the declared national emergency? Who has ever demanded that this be done? How many of us even knew that it had been done? And, without the knowledge contained in this report, how long do you think the blindness of the American public to this situation would have continued, and with it, the abolishment of the Constitution? But we’re not quite as in the dark as we were, are we?

In Senate Report 93-549, we find the following statement from Senator Church:

These powers, if exercised, would confer upon the President total authority to do anything he pleased.

Elsewhere in Senate Report 93-549, Senator Church makes the remarkable statement:

Like a loaded gun laying around the house, the plethora of delegated authority and institutions to meet almost every kind of conceivable crisis stand ready for use for purposes other than their original intention . Machiavelli, in his Discourses of Livy, acknowledged that great power may have to be given to the Executive if the State is to survive, but warned of great dangers in doing so. He cautioned: Nor is it sufficient if this power be conferred upon good men; for men are frail, and easily corrupted, and then in a short time, he that is absolute may easily corrupt the people.

Now, a quote from an exclusive reply written May 21, 1973, by the Attorney General of the United States regarding studies undertaken by the Justice Department on the question of the termination of the standing national emergency:

As a consequence, a national emergency is now a practical necessity in order to carry out what has the regular and normal method of governmental actions. What were intended by Congress as delegations of power to be used only in the most extreme situations, and for the most limited durations, have become everyday powers, and a state of emergency has become a permanent condition.

From United States v. Butler (Supreme Court, 1936):

A tax, in the general understanding and in the strict Constitutional sense, is an exaction for the support of 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.

What is being said here is that a tax can all be an exaction for the support of government, not for an expropriation from one group for the use of another. That would be socialism, wouldn’t it?

Quoting further from United States v. Butler:

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.

Speaking of contracts, those contracts are coercion contracts. They are adhesion contracts made by a superior over an inferior. They are under the belligerent capacity of government over enemies crafted by artifice. They are not valid contracts.

Again from United States v. Butler:

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 and limit 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 Federal United States converted into a central government exercising uncontrolled police power throughout the union superseding all local control over local concerns.

Please, read the above paragraph again. The understanding of its meaning is vital.

The United States Supreme Court ruled the New Deal, the nationalization, unconstitutional in the Agricultural Adjustment Act and they turned it down flat.

The Supreme Court declared it to be unconstitutional. They said, in effect, You’re turning the federal government into an uncontrolled police state, exercising uncontrolled police power.

What did Roosevelt do next? He stacked the Supreme Court, didn’t he? And in 1937, United States v. Butler was overturned. Roosevelt knew exactly what he was doing.

From the 65th Congress, 1st Session Doc. 87, under the section entitled Constitutional Sources of Laws of War, Page 7, Clause II, we find the following:

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.

The courts will tell you that is a political question, for they (the courts) do not have jurisdiction over the common law. (And the common law is the law of men, not fictions.)

The courts were deprived of the Constitution. They were deprived of the common law. The courts of today, are now courts of prize over the enemies, and we the American people have no persona standi in judicio. We have no personal standing under the statute law. Also from the 65th Congress, under the section entitled Constitutional Sources of Laws of War, we find:

When the sovereign authority shall choose to bring it into operation, the judicial department must give effect to its will. But until that will shall be expressed, no power of condemnation can exist in the court.

So . . . . WE THE PEOPLE are, and remain the SOVEREIGN power under the Constitution for the united States.

From Senate Report 93-549:

Just how effective a limitation on crisis action this makes of the court is hard to say. In light of the recent war, the court today would seem to be a fairly harmless observer of the emergency activities of the President and Congress. It is highly unlikely that the separation of powers and the 10th Article of Amendment will be called upon again to hamstring the efforts of the government to deal resolutely with a serious national emergency.

So much for our Constitutional system of checks and balances. And from that same Senate Report, in the section entitled, Emergency Administration, a continuation:

Organizationally, in dealing with the depression, it was Roosevelt’s general policy to assign new, emergency functions to newly created agencies, rather than to already existing departments.

Thus, thousands of temporary emergency agencies are now sitting out there with emergency functions to rule us with extreme prejudice in all cases whatsoever and whenever they so summarily chose.

Finally, let us look briefly at the courts, specifically with regard to the question of booty. The following definition of the term, prize is to be found in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary:

Goods taken on land from a public enemy are called booty; and the distinction between a prize and booty consists in this, that the former is taken at sea and the latter on land.

This significance of the distinction between these two terms is critical, a fact which will become quite clear shortly.

Let us now remember that Congress shall have the power to make rules on all captures on the land and the water. To reiterate, captures on the land are booty, and captures on the water are prize.

Now, the Constitution says that Congress shall have the power to provide and maintain a navy, even during peacetime. It also says that Congress shall have the power to raise and support an army, but no appropriations of money for that purpose shall be for greater than two years. Here we can see that an army is not a permanent standing body, because, in times of peace, armies were held by the sovereign states as militia. So the United States had a navy during peacetime, but no standing army; we had instead the individual state militias, both organized and unorganized.

Consequently, the federal government had a standing prize court, due to the fact that it had a standing navy, whether in times of peace or war

But in times of peace, there could be no federal police power over the continental united States, because there was to be no army, and NO jurisdiction over Sovereign American citizens!

From the report The Law of Civil Government in Territory Subject to Military Occupation by Military Forces of the United States, published by order of the Secretary of War in 1902, under the heading entitled The Confiscation of Private Property of Enemies in War, comes the following quote:

4. Should the President desire to utilize the services of the Federal courts of the *united States* in promoting this purpose or military undertaking, since these courts derive their jurisdiction from Congress and do not constitute a part of the military establishment, they must secure from Congress the necessary action to confer such jurisdiction upon said courts.

This means that, if the government is going to confiscate property within the continental united States on the land (booty), it must obtain the statutory authority of the Congress.

In this same section, we find the following words:

5. The laws and usages of war make a distinction between enemies’ property captured on the sea and property captured on land. The jurisdiction of the courts of the united States over property captured at sea is held not to attach to property captured on land in the absence of Congressional action.

There is no standing prize court over the land. Once war is declared, Congress must give jurisdiction to particular courts over captures on the land by positive Congressional action. To continue:

The right of confiscation is a sovereign right. In times of peace, the exercise of this right is limited and controlled by the domestic Constitution and institutions of the government.

In times of war, when the right is exercised against enemies’ property as a war measure, such right becomes a belligerent right, and as such is not subject to the restrictions imposed by domestic institutions, but is regulated and controlled by the laws and usages of war. This belligerent approach is consistent with the summary actions of the IRS when seizing property interest throughout the country and bypassing administrative and procedural mandates.

So we see that our government can operate in two capacities: (a) in its sovereign peacetime capacity, with the limitations placed upon it by the Constitution and restrictions placed upon it by We, the People, or (b) in a wartime capacity, where it may operate in its belligerent capacity governed not by the Constitution, but only by the laws of war.

In Section 17 of the Act of October 6, 1917, the Trading With the Enemy Act:

That the district courts of the United States are hereby given jurisdiction to make and enter all such rules as to notice and otherwise; and all such orders and decrees; and to issue such process as may be necessary and proper in the premises to enforce the provisions of this Act.

Here we have Congress conferring upon the district courts of the United States the booty jurisdiction, the jurisdiction over enemy property within the continental united States. And at the time of the original, un-amended, Trading with the Enemy Act, we were indeed at war, a World war, and so booty jurisdiction over enemies’ property in the courts was appropriate. At that time, remember, we were not yet declared the enemy. We were excluded from the provisions of the original Act.

In 1934 Congress passed an Act merging equity and law abolishing common law.

This Act, known as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures Act, was not to come into effect until 6 months after the letter of transmittal from the Supreme Court to Congress. The Supreme Court refused transmittal and the transmittal did not occur until Franklin D. Roosevelt stacked the Supreme Court in 1938.

But on March the 9th of 1933, the American people were declared to be the public enemy under the amended version of the Trading With the Enemy Act.

What jurisdiction were We, the People, then placed under? We were now the booty jurisdiction given to the district courts by Congress. (Being in commercial dishonor activates this booty jurisdiction.) It would no longer be necessary , or of any value at all, to bring the Constitution for the United States with us upon entering a booty courtroom, for that court was no longer a court of common law or Article III Court, but a tribunal under wartime booty jurisdiction. Take a look at the American flag in most American courtrooms. The gold fringe around our flag designates the Admiralty or wartime jurisdiction.

Executive Order No. 11677 issued by President Richard M. Nixon August 1, 1972 states:

Continuing the Regulation of Exports; By virtue of the authority vested in the President by the Constitution and statutes of the United States, including Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended (12 U.S.C. 95a), and in view of the continued existence of the national emergencies.

Later, in the same Executive Order, we find the following: under the authority vested in me as President of the United States by Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended (12 U. S. C. 95a)

Section 5 (b) certainly seems to be an oft-cited support for Presidential authority, doesn’t it? Surely the reason for this can be found by referring back to the words of Mr. Katzenbach in Senate Report 93-549:

My recollection is that almost every executive order ever issued straddles on several grounds, but it almost always includes the Trading With the Enemy Act because the language of that act is so broad, it would justify almost anything.

The question here, and it should be a question of grave concern to every Sovereign American, is what type of acts can almost anything cover? What has been, and is being, done, by our government under the cloak of authority conferred by Section 5 (b)? By now, I think we are beginning to know.

Has the termination of the national emergency ever been considered? In Public Law 94412, September 14, 1976, we find that Congress had finally finished their exhaustive study on the national emergencies, and the words of their findings were that they would terminate the existing national emergencies. We should be able to heave a sigh of relief at this decision, for with the termination of the national emergencies will come the corresponding termination of extraordinary Presidential power, won’t it?

But yet we have learned two difficult lessons: that we are still in the national emergency, and that power, once grasped, is difficult to let go. And so now it should come as no surprise when we read, in the last section of the Act, Section 502, the following words:

(a): The provisions of this Act shall not apply to the following provisions of law, the powers and authorities conferred thereby and actions taken there under (1) Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended (1 2 U. S. C. 95a; 50 U. S. C. App. 5b)

The bleak reality is, the situation has not changed at all.

The alarming situation in which We, the People, find ourselves today causes us to think back to a time over two hundred years ago in our nation’s history when our forefathers were also laboring under the burden of governmental usurpation of individual rights. Their response, written in 1774, two years before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, to the attempts of Great Britain to retain extraordinary powers it had held during a time of war became known as the  Declaration Of Colonial Rights: Resolutions Of The First Continental Congress, October 14, 1774. And in that document, we find these words:

Whereas, since the close of the last war, the British Parliament, claiming a power of right to bind the people of America, by statute, in all cases whatsoever, hath in some acts expressly imposed taxes on them. and in others, under various pretenses, but in fact for the purpose of raising a revenue, hath imposed rates and duties payable in these colonies established a board of commissioners, with unconstitutional powers, and extended the jurisdiction of the courts of admiralty, not only for collecting the said duties, but for the trial of causes merely arising within the body of a county.

We can see now that we have come full circle to the situation which existed in 1774, but with one crucial difference. In 1774, Americans were protesting against a colonial power which sought to bind and control its colony by wartime powers in a time of peace. In 1994, it is our own government (as it was theirs) which has sought, successfully to date, to bind its own people by the same subtle, insidious method.

Article 3, Section 3, of our Constitution states:

Treason against the united States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No Person shall be convicted of treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Is the Act of March 9, 1933, treason? That would be for the common law courts to decide. At this point in our nation’s history, the point is moot, for common law, and indeed the Constitution itself, do not operate or exist at present. Whether governmental acts of theft of the nation’s money, the citizens’ property, and American liberty as an ideal and a reality which have occurred since 1933 is treason against the people of the united States, as the term is defined by the Constitution of the united States cannot even be determined or argued in the legal sense until the Constitution itself is re-established.

For My part, however, I firmly believe that, by their fruits ye shall know them, and on that superior authority I offer this Affidavit and Memorandum for cause and in support of relief and thereby, remedy both out of necessity and operation of law, declaring my foreign neutral status and thereby, persona standi in judicio and within my own court at all times ! The presumption of Enemy of the State as implemented under the Trading with the Enemy Act stands rebutted with prejudice and for cause. Droit, droit.

My Expatriation from the United States – An Epilogue

I wanted to take this opportunity to reflect back on my Declaration of Sovereignty, Expatriation, and Dissolution of all Previous National and Political Allegiance, which I signed in December of 2007. With that Declaration, I renounced any real or implied allegiance to the government of the United States, as well as any consent to be provided any protection under its laws or obligation to obey them. I have heard nothing from anyone representing the US Government in refuting or acknowledging my Declaration, notwithstanding numerous visits from various government domains to my website, and more specifically, to my Declaration.

I have to admit, I wrote my Declaration at a time when I was having serious reservations about what I had been witnessing over some time; an ever-encroaching police state, fewer freedoms, more violence, apathetic populace, fear…. I could have retreated to my television or You Tube to disengage from the uneasiness, but instead, I chose to embrace it. Why did I feel like this? What is the reason? Was the answer “government”? No. The answer was me. For all of the things that caused me to feel uneasy, I could trace a source of conflict back to me. It was I who did not speak out. It was I who thought my obligation ended with voting someone else to correct the world’s ills. It was I who turned my head when law enforcement stepped out of bounds. It was I who had allowed myself to become de-natured in exchange for accepting a system that flourishes on fear and ignorance. I was just a man, and any tacit or explicit allegiance to a political system which brought much of the pain and suffering upon people everywhere was a voluntary approval of that system.

With that said, some have asked why pick on the ‚ United States? There are more oppressive political systems in the world; why not speak out against them? Well, because it is the United States that confronts me directly and provides the means for its petty tyrants to interject themselves into my life. I would say the same about any political society. I am an Anarchist. I do not believe in borders, governments, force. What makes the United States the object of my disdain is that it was allegedly founded on individual liberty, and in revolt to monarchy. It was founded in blood, and is maintained in blood. The patriotic platitudes still spew from the lips of politicians to perpetuate the anachronistic notions of individual liberty, but the actions of this government say otherwise. In the final discourse, it resorts to fear in garnering our consent. I do not support the Unites States, and having previously deemed to be one of its subjects, my Declaration is the catharsis for correcting that assumption. I likewise do not support other governments, but none have asked for my support, so to speak to each specifically is not required. My Declaration is my separation from all that is the United States government. From that point on, I will choose to associate myself with whatever political society I may so choose, but do so voluntarily and with fully-informed consent, reserving my right to withdraw that consent at any time.

Some have commented that since I did not follow statutory protocols in renouncing my citizenship that my renunciation therefore was not proper and I am considered to still be a citizen. What the US Government or any of its agents believe or perceive is of no consequence to me. They still deem to treat me as though I was a US citizen and for the purposes of confiscating my wealth. However, how I am treated by the US Government is no evidence as to what I say I am. It is I who determines my political status because I have to make the admission or seek a benefit or the protection of that government to fall within its jurisdiction. My presence in America is situational, where the jurisdiction of the US Government is political, and not territorial. For it to claim dominion over a plot of soil, absent a political precursor, is null and void. My political bonds have been disavowed and are no longer binding upon me with respect to them.

The reason for the lack of response from the US Government is two-fold. For them to challenge or refute my Declaration they would have to admit having read or being in receipt of it. They would have to either accept or deny its application, and more importantly, the right of people to associate or dis-associate themselves to or from political affiliations. If they accept it, then I am free from all political encumbrances, and likewise, anyone else who asserts their sovereignty; if not, then we have no choice but to succumb to the occupying forces and must therefore submit without recourse.

The United States Government, and their assorted municipal enclaves called “States”, have usurped and stolen from me over the years. I have been successful in keeping all of my earnings in some cases, and in others, been punitively withheld by so-called “employers”. I do not receive federal benefits because, in my opinion, I am not eligible due to not being a US citizen. However, I am not certain that I am willing to allow them to totally abscond with all that is rightfully mine without firing back. I have been placed at a disadvantage, having had the fruits of my labor stolen over the years. I only have a couple of options, as I see it. I can engage the government as though I were a citizen, taking benefits and filing their forms, or I can resort to more subtle and devious measures to recoup what is mine. It may come down to my having to lie, cheat, borrow, or steal to regain my property. As far as I’m concerned, there is no shame in lying or stealing from an entity which engages in lying and stealing to further its own ends. The only downside is if you are caught, and knowing how this government plays, it is wise to plan all moves accordingly.

I do not plan on staying in the US. I’ve been looking at other options abroad for some time. I won’t say where, but I’m sure they think they have it figured out since many of my trips involve Mexico, but traveling through Latin America and even out of the country is relatively easy once you are off US shores. I feel being a US citizen is in-fact more of a liability then a benefit since many countries look unkindly upon Americans and will lash out violently in response to the carnage and inhumanity left in the wake of US presence in many countries. It is not wise to travel with the blood of innocent people on your US Passport and wear the badge of imperialistic citizenship.

I am often asked, “Does the US recognize your expatriation?” I can’t say, but if so, they have erred greatly in allowing me to remain in the alleged “US”, working and living as usual. If they react in either way they are publicly on-notice and any inconsistency in their actions will be proof of their hypocrisy and arrogance. If I am not, then they are misapplying their laws to me and allowing me to remain in the “country”. If I am, then my Declaration means nothing and we have no option but to succumb to their occupation. I say I am not, and therefore will have to resort to “other means” to reclaim my property.

I harbor no love or allegiance for the US. As a country, it is a patent failure in self-determination, democracy, individual freedom, and liberty. It was never my government, as I have no need for it. There are plenty of good people, but that can be said for any spot on the globe. There is nothing special about people just because of where they may be found upon the soil. However, more-and-more “Americans” are resigned to simply obey the edicts of a corrupt, violent, and deceitful government than challenge any legitimacy on the grounds it violates natural rights or individual liberty. The people, in large part, have succumbed to materialism, immediate gratification, greed, ignorance, and fear. There is little foundation upon which to build a cohesive society which recognizes fundamental individual rights and adheres to principles of tolerance, peace, and autonomy. I welcome all peaceful people and admonish those who rally in support of the Leviathan.

What has changed, following my Declaration? In some respects, not much. There is greater peace of mind and comfort in being able to step back and see the US for what it is, and having the resolve and purpose to disassociate myself from it. I am now operating under the law of necessity, and will do all that is “necessary and proper” for me, by “any means necessary”. Let the bureaucrats and keepers of the plantation mull those words over for awhile. They love to engage in double-speak and abstractions. I will remain true to my commitment to peace and tolerance, but as for government, that abstract legal fiction of coercive control, peace rests with its demise.

Tagged , ,

Cedar Falls, Iowa City Council Demands Keys to Resident's Property

Watch this video and tell me this does not outrage you.

A link to the actual excerpt from the May 23, 2011 meeting from the Cedar Falls website is here

This link is to the subsequent meeting on June 13, 1011 where the ordinance passed

I recommend watching the entire excerpt if you can find the time. I want to say thank you to Nick Taiber, who aptly presented a well-reasoned objection to this proposed ordinance and his standing firm in the face of what must have been daunting peer pressure. One council members, John Runchey, alludes to an authority higher than he or the citizens. Let me tell you something, Mr. Runchey, the people are the ultimate authority. Do not refer to some judicial misfit lurking in the wings to prop your flaccid position on some inane reading of powers posses by government through the Constitution. You are not deserving of holding any position of governance or representation because you are devoid of any concept of the flow of power.

The proposed ordinance, 2740, by the Cedar Falls, Iowa City Council imposes a duty upon commercial property to make available access to their property by way of lock boxes. This includes businesses, apartments, and some rental units. It is allegedly promulgated under the authority of the 2009 edition of the International Fire Code. Chief John Schilling of the Cedar Falls Fire Department is the lackey who supports introducing into his enforcement penumbra a code of international standards as being imposed upon the citizens of Cedar Falls. Schilling also comments on his belief that the constitutionality of such an ordinance has had to have been pondered somewhere, since he alleges this program being implemented in larger metropolitan cities like Washington, D.C. and Chicago. Mr. Schilling, who cares what the constitutionality of this measure is? The bottom line is that when the people find a law oppressive they have a right to act or resist in spite of what powers you believe come from the Constitution.

This is but one of the methods by which municipalities slowly pry themselves into the lives of the unwitting without any requirement for constitutionality. If you submit, you have no claim. The constitution, in all its impotent glory, is designed to be a tool to protect us from government. If you pave the path to your liberty for which to permit governmental intrusion, then the constitution has no place in protecting the ignorant from themselves.

The City of Collinsville has attempted a number of intrusions into private lives, beginning with businesses and landlords; again, to test the waters of compliance. I’ve written on a number of them including these:

You have to admire the arrogance of the city council and their insistence that they are keeping the citizens “safe”. It makes you wonder if they consider the people as part of the citizenry, or if it is just another name for the elite.  Particularly frustrating is the clueless councilman Kamyar Enshayan. A self-aggrandizing megalomaniac, he smugly retorts with scripted indifference at the objections of the attendees. Seeing as how these council persons live within the community, it should not be difficult for the citizens to make their voice, “abundantly clear”. I would see to it that their only concern for safety would be that of their own, and as a result, a rare appearance out in public or to council meetings where they wield their condescension.

I believe there is a concerted effort among various municipalities in testing such legislation in hopes of gaining intrusion into our lives with nary a whimper.

Mr Kamyar Enshayan is quoted as saying, “The merit of an idea does not depend on the number of people who hold that idea.” Mr. Enshayan, would you say that likewise applies to people who hold the idea that government is tasked with providing individual protection or safety? The merit of government, as well as you and your ilk, does not depend on the number of people who breathe life into your caustic personna, but rather depends on the resolve of the limited few or individuals standing firm against your intentions.

For those who wish to reach out to the council, here is their contact information.

City Council Members 



Tom HagartyTom Hagarty

1st Ward

809 Franklin Street

Cedar Falls, IA 50613

Ph: (319) 266-1321


Susan DeBuhr

Susan DeBuhr

2nd Ward

1713 Continental Access StreetCedar Falls, IA 50613

Ph: (319) 277-8974



John Runchey – This man should be tarred and feathered for his idiotic comments about keeping people safe. Where is the authority for doing this, Mr. Runchey?

John Runchey

3rd Ward

920 Columbine Drive

Cedar Falls, IA 50613

Ph: (319) 277-1053

Ph: (319) 415-9350



Kamyar Enshayan – This man is simply a blithering idiot who wants to protect everyone from everything but the city government.

Kamyar Enshayan

4th Ward

1703 Washington Street

Cedar Falls, IA 50613

Ph: (319) 266-5468

Ph: (319) 273-7575


Frank Darrah

Frank Darrah

5th Ward

1915 Greenhill Drive

Cedar Falls, IA

Ph: (319) 277-2801

Ph: (319) 290-0381


Nick Taiber – Nick is the only council member who voted against the proposed ordinance. Thank you Mr. Taiber! 

Nick Taiber

At Large

221 W. 13th Street

Cedar Falls, IA 50613

Ph: (319) 610-8370


Mayor Jon Crews 

Mayor Jon Crews

Contact the Mayor’s Office

By phone at 319-268-5119

By email at


David WielandDavid Wieland 

At Large

4201 Heritage Road

Cedar Falls, IA 50613

Ph: (316) 266-4300

In closing, I would urge the citizens of Cedar Falls who are forced to comply with this mandate to purchase a used box, hang it from your door, and break the key off in the lock. Who’s to say “how” it happened?  Also, if anyone from Cedar Falls sees this article, please forward to me a copy of the legal brief the City relied upon in supporting this ordinance. They always begin with commercial activities and as time goes on, people forget the limited application and through legalese and custom, they slowly implement on the unwitting and unaware.

Police Have the Right to Invade the Homes of Judges in Indiana.

I find this case to be a warning shot across the bow of those hold-outs who believe this is a government of, by, and for the People, and that political action will remedy the no-longer stealthy encroachment upon natural, unalienable rights. No longer does the State veil its threats in craftily worded court opinions, but rather proudly raise the flag of totalitarianism in laying claim to one of the most fundamental of rights, that of self-defense. I expound upon the application of this right and previous courts recognizing such in this article.  The Indiana Supreme Court also references one seminal case, Bad Elk v. United States.

In that case, the court said,

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

However, the Indiana Supreme Court goes on to overturn this antiquated, common law right in referring to the Model Penal Code, The Uniform Arrest Act, 28 Va. L. Rev. 315, 330 (1942). What people fail to realize is, that under the Common Law, it was recognized that the individual was in full possession of his liberties by way of natural, unalienable rights and the protections guaranteed by the Constitution. Nowadays, courts circumvent long-held beliefs in the supremacy of individual liberty in favor of public policy. Everyone is essentially considered to be suspected of something, and when felonies were the crime of concern, the bar has been lowered to accommodate misdemeanors as well. Everyone is considered to be potentially violent and in violation of some law. Police are afforded carte blanche when it comes to inspecting, questioning, detaining, arresting, and even killing people.  The Indiana Supreme Court said,

“The Model Penal Code eliminated the right on two grounds: ―(1) the development of alternate remedies for an aggrieved arrestee, and (2) the use of force by the arrestee was likely to result in greater injury to the person without preventing the arrest.‖  Hemmens & Levin, supra, at 23.  In response to this criticism, a majority of states have abolishedthe right via statutes in the 1940s and judicial opinions in the 1960s.

What are the “alternate remedies for aggrieved arrestees” the court favors in opposition to the common law right to resist arrest? Under the common law right, the court supports its previous recognition of the right based on the then-perils facing the arrestee such as indefinite detention, lack of bail, disease-infested prisons, and physical torture. This is to say that when faced with such possibilities, an individual had the right to resist unlawful arrest because the outcome from such resistance was less and considered more reasonable than the perils awaiting him if he should submit. Reading this another way, the courts were saying that law enforcement was known to, at times, treat arrested persons in ways inconsistent with natural, unalienable rights and Constitutional protections. The “alternate remedies” to which the court now speaks, referring to them as “modern developments’, include, “(1) bail, (2) prompt arraignment and determination of probable cause, (3)the exclusionary rule, (4) police department internal review and disciplinary procedure, and (5) civil remedies).” This is to say that, presuming you survive the arrest, you have more civil and peaceable remedies at your disposal which will still subject you to the arbitrary, corrupt, and protracted administration of so-called “justice”. If you are the victim of an unlawful arrest you can post bail, challenge the probable cause for the intrusion, which has essentially been negated by this ruling because probable cause exists only in justifying the grounds for an arrest, exclude any illegally obtained evidence and petition the gangsters who violated your rights for redress and pursue civil remedies of which the legislatures have extended limited immunity. Sounds like a fair trade-off to me.

There are two Justices who voiced their dissent with the majority ruling, and you can read the entire court opinion here. They likewise mention the overbreadth of this ruling which essentially means the police need no reason at all for entering your home. One thing that distinguishes this case from others where the court affirmed the Common Law right to resist unlawful arrest is that this was a “domestic violence” case where a call to 911 was made. The Court did not mention this as a specific and limited application of their overbroad abrogation of the common law, but briefly mention it early in the ruling. Domestic violence, or not, the Court essentially buries centuries of jurisprudence which recognizes the right of an individual to defend themselves from unlawful State action, especially that which violates the sanctity of their home.

I wonder what Justice, Steven David, would do when faced with the specter of an unlawful arrest; especially on in which his very life is threatened by police. For example, let’s say that some private individuals purchase uniforms that resemble police uniforms. Let ‘s say these individuals just so happen to be particularly exasperated with the despotic ruling by Justice David and, as a result, exhibit aggressive, violent, and irrational behavior when acting out this scenario; much like a common police officer would exhibit. Let’s say these angry, violent, police-imposters barge into Justice David’s home with guns drawn and barking orders at the residents, maybe including David’s wife, children, and elderly parents. Let’s assume that Justice David is a gunowner and has within his reach access to a firearm. The imposters order everyone to the ground where they go on to verbally abuse and physically assault recalcitrant suspects. Justice David tries to verbally engage the imposters to determine the reason for the intrusion. Some of David’s family appear to resist out of fear for their lives. The imposters kick and pistol whip them for their insolence. They shout to the suspects, “Shut up! Justice David has affirmed our right to violate your right to be secure in your own home! We are blameless!” During the confrontation, one of the imposters shoots and kills David’s children and wife as well as seriously wounding David himself. They then apologize for the intrusion, citing a mistaken address provided to them by a drug snitch before leaving the premises.

Would David gather his fallen family members and tsk-tsk-tsk their demise as a justifiable exercise of State action? He would be none the wiser that the perpetrators were not police, as they were disguised as police. Yet, in David’s twisted mind he would believe their actions to be in conformance with his psychotic ruling. Would David lick his wounds and then march down to the county courthouse to file a civil suit to recover monetary damages to replace the lost affection and companionship of his fallen family members? Would he look at the hole in his leg and reflect back on his ruling, thinking, ” ’tis just and right.”? One must wonder what such a man would do when faced with the real-world application of his holding. I guess David, being the good Statist that he is, would accept the death of his family as reasonable, since their recourse is to quietly compost into worm food and apply for bail.

Of course, God forbid any such thing would happen, but then again, God forbid the State would do the same to any other. Yet, that very thing happens all too frequently. In that case, I guess there is no reason to feel any differently towards Justice David’s loss than that of any other; and seeing David has no consideration for the possible horrors facing others who take exception with David’s opinion, I can only speculate that David would believe his family “deserved it”. Maybe Justice David has something to think about, and maybe something to fear, as well. What follows is the text of the opinion. This message brought to you by Bob’s Costume Rental, 123 Main Street, Indianapolis, Indiana.

INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer’s entry.

“We believe … a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,” David said. “We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”

David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.

The court’s decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.

When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him.

Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court’s decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.

“It’s not surprising that they would say there’s no right to beat the hell out of the officer,” Bodensteiner said. “(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer.”

Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court’s decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

“In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally — that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances,” Rucker said. “I disagree.”

Rucker and Dickson suggested if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations they would have supported the ruling.

But Dickson said, “The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad.”

This is the second major Indiana Supreme Court ruling this week involving police entry into a home.

On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Prior to that ruling, police serving a warrant would have to obtain a judge’s permission to enter without knocking.


You live in a police state. The government is arbitrary. Anything you do is illegal if they say so.

by Jim Davidson on Friday, April 1, 2011 at 10:45pm

Evil is as evil does. The work of government is funded by theft. Much of the work involves crime: stealing, killing, raping, torturing, accepting stolen funds, and preventing people from having the peaceful enjoyment of their property (theft, vandalism). We identify these actions in the mundane populace as crime, or “mala in se.” “Evil in itself” because there is a victim who is harmed in each case.

Giving these actions colour of law and putting pretty hats and badges on those engaged in them does not change their character. The actions continue to be mala in se. The victims are very real.

What is hinted at is not religion in the sense of organised hierarchy but ethics and morality, right and wrong, as guided by discovered foundational principles such as the zero aggression principle.

Calling it religion to dismiss it does not advance the cause of creating a society based on voluntary ideas.

Most organised religion has served, in the past, as a form of government. Much of organised religious behaviour is “mala in se.” Such as Catholic priests raping children and the pope using treaty obligations (with, e.g., Belgium) to try to cover up the crimes and prevent the criminals from paying compensation and being restricted from future criminal conduct toward children.

When someone does something that is “mala in se” which is “evil in itself” or “wrong in itself” by causing harm to a victim – and I think we should focus initially on physical harm, harm to person, harm to property, and eventually on other meaningful harm to dignity, reputation, etc. – then that person cannot be rehabilitated into a free society of equals without making up for the harm caused. Merely stopping what they have been doing is not enough.

If someone comes to my ranch and steals one of my sheep, that is wrong. That harms me. To say that this person has been “cured” or has done enough to be regarded as normal, non-evil, non-criminal, or good merely because they have stopped is obviously silly. It is insufficient on its face.

To make up for the crime, the sheep would have to be returned to me, or an equivalent sheep of equal or greater value. Also, I would have to be compensated for the time and effort to seek out the criminal, find them, bind them for justice, find the person who judges them, and have that person meet with the person who judges me to render judgement. The court would have to be compensated for their time and costs in adjudicating the dispute. If the sheep were female and bore a lamb or lambs, I would have to be compensated for those, as well. My losses due to not having the sheep in my possession for a period of time would have to be compensated. The court in its judgement might assign other compensation to be paid based on the circumstances of the case.

I believe that once compensation has been made, the crime is erased. The evil has been made good. The wrong is undone. I say erased in the sense of -1 + 1 = 0. Not erased as in forgotten. The insurance company or family that has responsibility for the liabilities of the criminal ought to safeguard against future costs by watching that person closely, perhaps offering training and discussion which would encourage the person to do no wrong again. Go now and sin no more.

Obviously, in cases like murder and rape the compensation might be more extensive. It might not be possible to make up for the crime, ever.

I believe that people know right from wrong and can tell a hawk from a handsaw when the wind is Southerly.

But suppose they were confused? So what? They were “only following orders”? They were “just doing our jobs”? These have the stench of the Nuremberg defense. Every single person has a conscience. Every single person is responsible, individually, for their actions. Whether they were duped, distracted, kept ignorant, or not. Doing things that are wrong remains wrong, and the responsibility remains with the person acting. We call this relationship between actions and their consequences “karma.” Karma is a word meaning “actions have consequences.” A special case is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Letter to the Editor of the Belleville News Democrat 2/23/2011

This is a letter written to the Editor of the Belleville News Democrat and published on 2/23/2011

The link is here, but I can’t say how long it will be available.

Revolt like an Egyptian

America, you have been outdone. All of your posturing, platitudes and rhetoric are for naught.

The events that coalesced the Egyptian people to take a stand exist here in America, but nary a dissenting voice is raised against your keepers. How sad; and you call this the land of the free and home of the brave.

Egyptian blogger Wael Ghonim stated he had enough when he saw photos of a fellow Egyptian who died at the hands of police. He said the Egyptian police acted like they were in charge instead of the people. What caused a revolt in Egypt happens every day in America.

He also mentioned that you must first lose psychological fear; the fear government uses to keep you accepting its abuses. My fear left long ago. What are they going to do to me? The Fairview Heights Police already tried to kill me and failed.

Since that time I’ve filed a civil lawsuit and approached former State’s Attorney Bob Haida, State’s Attorney Brendan Kelly, and Judge John Baricevic with criminal charges. They have refused to answer or mishandled the information. I’ve approached the News-Democrat as well. There is no justice here.

I go into much more detail on my site at

You think you are free? You think you have responsive government? Think again.

America deserves what the Egyptian people gave their government.

Mark McCoy


This is a response to my letter from a News Democrat reader, Bev Mattison.

Proud to be an American

I need to respond to the recent letter by Mark McCoy.

My first thought after reading his letter was, seriously? Then I reread it. I couldn’t believe anyone would compare the United States government with Egypt.

I was especially amused by him comparing the person killed by Egyptian police to his apparent encounter with the Fairview Heights Police Department, stating, “Fairview Heights Police tried to kill me and failed.”

All deference to his overactive imagination, but if the Fairview Heights Police Department tried to kill him, they would have succeeded. Their training and professionalism are top-notch. They don’t make those types of errors.

McCoy also asks, “Do you think you’re free?” Yes, mostly. “Do you think your government is responsive?” Not always, but it’s far superior to most other countries.

As for America deserving what the Egyptian people gave their government, I agree. Ours took place about 236 years ago. It was called the American Revolution. You can Google it!

Bev Mattison

Fairview Heights


Detective fired for trying to secede from U.S. The "price of freedumb"

Although I sympathize with Tom Laughlin based on his intentions, it is obvious he clearly did not think through his actions. For the record, my actions of expatriating and renouncing my US citizenship are not attributed to being a “Sovereign Citizen”. Sovereignty is becoming a dirty word in some respects because when misused by people, the government and media pounce on the opportunity to impugn the notion as that of insanity. The government has no qualms invoking its “Sovereignty” when asserting jurisdiction or other claims against nations. Sovereignty is not a political concept, but a philosophical one. There is no dispute that governments claim to possess sovereignty, but governments are fictions.

You cannot seek redress against a government for a personal injury. There is no individual responsible for the collective acts of a government. If you suffer a harm, it is because of what an individual did,  not a government. People take the actions. They may do it in the name of their office or working for the government, but what does that mean and how do you prove it? Nothing transforms an individual from an individual into a government officer; not the votes, not the oath, not the recognition. It is all a game and fantasy. It means only what people allow it to mean.

Government operates under (allegedly) the consent of the people forming that government. Those people must possess some individual power to first freely associate and then exercise collective power to form a government. This is called popular sovereignty. It is an inherent right to do something. Therefore, for the government to possess sovereignty it must first acquire it from the people creating that government. That which is created cannot be greater than the creator. With my Declaration, I declared my personal sovereignty and refusal to act or become a part of that which I do not consensually and voluntarily submit myself to. I am not a citizen because I do not identify with any government worthy of my allegiance or membership with. Once I profess citizenship I reject my sovereignty. With citizenship, I am no longer the supreme authority for I have surrendered some of that sovereignty in favor of the protections and benefits of government. There is a price to pay for that relationship.

People have a right to associate and join whatever group or organization they wish. Likewise, they have a right to not join or to even leave that which no longer suits their purposes or which proves contradictory to their beliefs. That is my position. I swear no allegiance, not just to the United States Government, but to ANY government. I respect the rights of others who wish to belong to such things, but their actions and laws affect only them. I aver to a higher law which embraces all people, not just certain citizens. Once we realize we are all equally endowed with individual rights the needs for borders and nations begin to dissolve. I have no problem with people wishing to belong, but they also must accept my right to not belong. To force someone to participate in something contrary to their beliefs is slavery.

The story below illustrates the misguided beliefs of the “Sovereign Citizen Movement” and how they contradict themselves by resorting to legal machinations in attempting to free themselves from government; when in reality their freedom is illusory because they still want the benefits of being a citizen-conscript. They resort to UCC arguments, strawman idiocy, and other contradictions. I will highlight the absurdities in the article and comment in italics, but it is important to understand the distinction between sovereignty and citizenship. This man got it wrong, big time.

By Anthony Cormier

SARASOTA – Last April, a veteran Sarasota homicide detective went to the courthouse and tried to secede from the United States of America.
Key Documents:
Internal Affairs Report for Detective Thomas Laughlin

Sovereign Citizen Documents

The detective, Tom Laughlin, filed a convoluted document declaring himself a “sovereign citizen.” The filing included a thumbprint on each page and a photocopy of 21 silver pieces — the price to become a “freeman.” I have no idea as to the significance of a photocopy of 21 silver pieces, but what is amazing is the price to become a freeman. If man is free, then why the price? Is this some repurchase of one’s self from their master? This is very odd, indeed.

In doing so, Laughlin, 42, joined a small but growing group of U.S. citizens who claim they are not subject to federal law, that they no longer have to pay taxes and that their homes are their embassies. For the information of all you U.S. citizens, you are subject to federal law and have to pay taxes. That is because you are a U.S. citizen. You have to pay for the benefits derived from that membership. This is like a fish saying they are not subject to being wet. As far as homes being embassies, I have no idea where that came from and if for real, illustrates the craziness of that movement.

Last week, he was fired for it.

In what department insiders are calling one of the strangest internal affairs cases in recent memory, Laughlin has gone from a decorated and respected investigator to the subject of office jokes.

Laughlin has handled some of the area’s highest-profile cases in recent years. His work led to the conviction of Deandre Tunstall for gang-related murders. He solved the cold-case killing of John Allaman Jr. on Bird Key, and he teamed with U.S. marshals to track down Willie James Kimble, a Sarasota man accused of beating a woman to death in New York nearly 40 years ago.

In his personal life, though, Laughlin was growing increasingly frustrated with the direction of the city and the country. He privately worried that “Obamacare” was bad for his family, that Sarasota leaders planned to lay off police officers, and that the city might take his pension. How can a sovereign citizen, someone who is free from the government, collect a pension; a benefit from having served that government? When you claim your freedom you surrender all of the things connected with your servitude. If you are free, you can’t come back to the plantation for a hot meal; you work for and provide for your own sustenance. That includes any benefits from employment.

His brother, also a “sovereign citizen” who recently was charged in St. Johns County with trying to extort two Florida Highway Patrol troopers and later with bilking a Sarasota bank of $50,000, convinced Laughlin that he could declare himself a “freeman.”

So Laughlin headed to the courthouse in April to legally renounce his citizenship, telling local, state and federal officials that he would only communicate with them in writing.

“What the paperwork was done for, was basically to get back to the roots,” Laughlin told internal affairs investigators. “The Constitution. You know. And under God and back to the meat of what it really is.” Mr. Laughlin, as if God and the Constitution constitute what is “real”. What is real is each individual having to get through this life the best they can. God does not write Constitutions, create nations, start wars, wave flags, tax, imprison men…. all the things that man does in the name of his government. The Constitution is not what it “really is”. It is not the source for your liberty or rights. If the Constitution is your only reference for what defines a free man then you have a lot to learn. The Constitution was not written for you, or anybody, other than who wrote it and the men who would then use it to control the masses.

About the same time, investigative reports show, Laughlin’s colleagues saw his behavior change around the office. He talked increasingly of a “straw man account” that allowed government to hide millions of dollars from citizens. If the government wants to hide millions of dollars why would it need to stuff it inside of a straw man? Do you think this crooked government would bother creating accounts in secret and then tricking people to act for the straw man? There are definitely administrative files that bear the names of individuals, such as court cases, tax files, social security… but those do not affect you. They are not “your” account full of riches. They are but a way government tracks and organizes its dealings with us and how it creates justification for what it does. They are not magical or mysterious. They are of no consequence to a free man who has nothing to do with government. Let them create whatever they want. Who cares? It is not yours.

Colleagues told internal affairs that Laughlin wanted to pay off personal debts through the straw man account and that he made strange statements about a global financial conspiracy.

According to internal affairs documents, Laughlin believed freeman-based ideas that the red numbers on a Social Security card were clues to finding the account, and that birth certificates were related to secret ships berthed in a port that held access to millions of straw man dollars. I can’t even comment on this lunacy. Accepting this is a sure sign of insanity.

“It was one of those things where, as he’s trying to explain it to me, I’m looking at him thinking, ‘You’re crazy,'” Detective Charles Riffe said in a statement to investigators. “I mean, what the hell? It didn’t make any sense to me.”

Colleagues soon discovered Laughlin had declared himself a freeman — many officers viewed the public records on the court’s website — and concerns grew that his status could jeopardize criminal cases he worked because he felt he was no longer a citizen, reports state.

Laughlin’s beliefs put him directly at odds with his superiors, who had begun to watch out for sovereign citizens.

The FBI listed those calling themselves sovereign as a domestic terror threat following a series of violent attacks by members, including Terry Nichols of the Oklahoma City bombing, Joe Stack, who flew his plane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas, and Jerry and Joseph Kane, the father and son who fatally shot two Arkansas police officers last May. Well, the FBI is partially correct. Government calls itself sovereign and it is a domestic terror threat, so kudos for hitting that nail on the head. However, I declared my sovereignty, but pose no threat to anybody but government by my refusal to accept or support it. All of my “threats” relate to self-defense. It is simple, allow those who reject this present system of corruption and violence to remove themselves from it and there will be no problems. I will live by my own efforts and industry and suffer my own consequences. I do not believe in the indiscriminate use of violence by Sovereign Citizens, government, or anyone else. I would not strike out against anyone unless they came to me directly with an overt threat to my life of liberty. I don’t need a truck bomb for that. I have my own two hands to defend myself. I understand the violent reaction to government, but people are lashing out at themselves because they need only stop supporting it for it to become ineffective. Of course, there are real consequences to that as well, but I refuse to adopt the methodology of a violent institution, government, in order to fight it.

The Southern Poverty Law Center estimates there are about 300,000 sovereign citizens in the U.S., and the radical movement has a huge presence online — from websites that provide the documents to file for sovereign status in court, to YouTube videos in which members openly threaten law enforcement officers.

The movement came to the Sarasota Police Department’s attention last year, when an intelligence officer sent a bulletin warning officers to be wary of their interactions with “sovereign citizens.”

In an interview this week, Laughlin said he began to have second thoughts about the movement in June, during a vacation with his brother.

The two were pulled over on a North Florida interstate and Laughlin’s brother, James, berated a trooper, saying state laws did not apply to him.

James Laughlin later mailed documents to the trooper saying he should drop the citation and pay him $150,000 for violating his rights or he would sue for $32 million. This is one example of what the Sovereign Citizens are all about. They want to profit from their interraction with the State. What “rights” were violated that warrant a bill, and how do you sue in courts that you claim to be free from?

“That’s when I knew this was something that I didn’t want to be a part of,” Tom Laughlin told the newspaper. “I filed those documents without really reading them. All I wanted to do was make a political statement about the way things are going in this country. I didn’t want to be involved in any kind of extremist movement.” If you don’t want to be involved with an extremist movement, then get out of police work and away from government without all the crazy paperwork.

Department officials began an internal affairs case in July. Prosecutors determined that Laughlin had not broken any laws, but city attorneys openly fretted he may have violated his oath of office.

By then, Laughlin says, he had already taken steps to make the court records invalid. While the paperwork has no legal value, Laughlin found that they cannot be redacted and cannot be removed from a public website.

After a lengthy internal inquiry, supervisors accused Laughlin of associating with a hate group that advocates violence, not answering questions honestly, and using department computers to search websites on straw man accounts and sovereign citizens. So, they accused him of acting like a cop while claiming to be a Sovereign Citizen? If you want to be violent you can’t be both a violent cop and a violent Sovereign Citizen. Pick which violence best suits your needs and be the worst you can be.

A review board recommended he be suspended for four weeks and transferred out of the criminal investigative division. The suspension would have cost him about $10,000.

But he was fired instead by Chief Mikel Hollaway, who was on vacation this week and could not be reached for comment. City Manager Bob Bartolotta said Hollaway conferred with him before the decision.

“The honesty issue was very, very important to the chief,” Bartolotta said. “He has to rely on his officers to be honest at all times, and I think that was the biggest factor in his decision.”

Laughlin has hired a private attorney and plans to appeal the firing. Laughlin now says he made clear that the freeman paperwork was a mistake and that he realizes there should be consequences. Maybe he will convince them to fire his straw man instead.

“I screwed up and I deserve to take my lumps,” he said. “I know what I did was stupid. But I don’t think I deserve to lose my job over it. I have been a police officer since I was 19 years old. This is all I know.” And that, Mr. Laughlin, is very sad.

Police Have NO Duty To Protect Individuals


There is much ado, particularly where I live in St. Clair County, about budget shortfalls and the resulting lay-offs of police. The media is commenting on possible “safety” issues and residents express concern over lack of protection. In reality, there is no protection by police. That is not their job. If it were, then there would be some remedy at law for their failing to protect anyone. People have made such a claim in the past and the courts have opined on the fallacious belief that police are for anyone’s protection.

People are responsible for their own protection. It is insane to think that another man will respond to a plea for help from someone he has never met in such fashion so as to prevent imminent harm, or to otherwise identify impending harm and prevent it. People disarm themselves and rely upon an emergency phone call to keep them from violence. Government prefers it that way, because for every case where an individual suffered harm, they ask for more money to pay more police; lending to the perception that one day we all will have our own armed guard.

Now, if police actually addressed crime, that being violent acts perpetrated by people against people rather than legislative prohibitions such as drugs, motor vehicles, ordinance violations… there would be less demand for such police and thereby lower budgets. It has gotten to the point where police inject themselves into our private affairs, not because they care for our safety, but because they are looking for any possible transgression for which to arrest someone and reap financial gain for the State through fines. This also applies to roadside checkpoints where they look for seatbelt violations and impaired drivers. It is an illusion of safety, when it is really a revenue generating endeavor. The State profits from the imperfections of people. I am not threatened by unlicensed or un-belted drivers, nor am I threatened by someone who has a .1 blood alcohol level and competently operates their vehicle.

Fewer police does not mean more safety, it means more freedom to non-violent people. More police means a false sense of security by insecure or frightened people who want everyone to pay for their illusory safety.

Forget about police having a duty to protect you. There is no such thing. I’ve linked to court cases which say the same thing.

“Protect and to serve”, is as binding as “Good to the Last Drop”: IT IS ONLY A SLOGAN as the following court rulings clearly indicate:

Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)

Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Simpson’s Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)