signing Calif. Driver's License without prejudice UCC 1-207
stephenh
Can one sign a California Driver's license with one's name
and the phrase "without prejudice UCC 1-207"?
Is it legal for the Calif. DMV to refuse to grant a driver's license
because the signature is "not normal" or "contains a citation"???
Does anyone have a CDL signed with the UCC clause?
Steve
Wyatt Copple
In article <stephenhD...@netcom.com>,
step...@netcom.com (stephenh) wrote:
>Can one sign a California Driver's license with one's name
>and the phrase "without prejudice UCC 1-207"?
Exactly what would this accomplish? This seems to me
another of the ploys that some people seem to try to pull.
The UCC is intened to regulate commerce. I'd ask myself,
"What doI think section 1-207 has to do with obtaining a
driver's license?". The UCC is not law in al 50 states, and
is not necessarily enacted verbatim in those states that do
operate under UCC principles. Moreover, the laws governing
the issuance of driver's licenses (or other licenses and
permits) are likely to be entirely separate from the UCC.
Curt Howland
|> In article <stephenhD...@netcom.com>,
|> step...@netcom.com (stephenh) wrote:
|> >Can one sign a California Driver's license with one's name
|> >and the phrase "without prejudice UCC 1-207"?
wyatt...@atlantech.net (Wyatt Copple) writes:
|> Exactly what would this accomplish? This seems to me
|> another of the ploys that some people seem to try to pull.
|> The UCC is intened to regulate commerce. I'd ask myself,
|> "What doI think section 1-207 has to do with obtaining a
|> driver's license?".
The drivers license laws, as written, were to cover
chauferrs(sp?) and commercial truckers/haulers, etc.
Over time, the words chauferr and "driver" were merged,
into just "driver", which remains the commercial term.
Through fraud and colour of law, the term "driver" has
been applied to anyone traveling over the highway in a
self-propelled conveyance. The law was never changed,
never voted upon or repealed, simply the use of the
words has been expanded. We now pay a "tax" to register
our carrages and trucks for commercial use on the
public highways, and a "licensing fee" to do business
on those roads. That's what it's always been, and so
it remains.
The fact that people are led to believe that they need
a license to exercise the right to travel freely by the
accepted modes of the day is pure $$. Mind you, the
"rules of the road" apply to everyone. This is the
common sense regulation allowed on the right to travel,
it keeps us from running into each other by saying
things like "slower traffic keep right" and "first
to stop at the stop sign goes first", etc.
Ever wonder why speeding is prosecuted as an "infraction"?
Because you didn't BREAK THE LAW. You violated a code
set down for the professional commercial use of the
public highways, and if you continue to do so they will
take away your license to do business on the road.
However, *harm someone* and sudenly you face a jury and
a real court. You have now broken a law, and face your
responsibility as pilot of the conveyance, commercial
or not.
The wording of the California vehical code is very
specific: Driving is not a right. They are correct.
Traveling is. Doing business on the public roads is the
same as doing business in any tax-payer funded location.
The problem is, as always, getting those that profit$$
from the deliberate misleading of the population, to
follow their own laws.
The UCC is not law in al 50 states, and
|> is not necessarily enacted verbatim in those states that do
|> operate under UCC principles. Moreover, the laws governing
|> the issuance of driver's licenses (or other licenses and
|> permits) are likely to be entirely separate from the UCC.
Correct, as far as it goes. The UCC covers business
contracts, which are always made "as per the laws of"
some state, or the Federal United States. That's why
companies say things like "a California company", which
means that their contracts are covered by the laws of
California unless specifically stated otherwise.
The Department of Motor Vehicals is a California company,
and your drivers license is a contract. The UCC applies,
and section 1-207 is ratified in California.
Better, however, after reading the above, to sign it
"Non-Assumpsit", that is that only what is specifically
and directly represented to the person is what is being
agreed to (no shadow-contracts), and "Under Duress and
colour of law" since the California officials will
lock you up for "driving without a licence" when you
are simply traveling on the public highways in the
accepted mode of the day and not doing business.
I don't advocate not getting a drivers license unless
you do all the paperwork to assert it as the right to
travel that it is. There is no cookie-cutter way to
back the DMV into the corner on the issue, each case
must be taken seperately. It is not for the faint of
heart, nor does it stop there... Remember the "Franchise
Tax Board"? When did you get your license to work from
the State? Yet, you pay your % franchise fee just to work....
---
Curt Howland how...@Priss.com
"Laws do not persuade just because they threaten."
-Seneca, 65 AD
William H. Hinkle
In <4n65gl$8...@news.arc.nasa.gov> how...@Priss.com (Curt Howland)
writes:
[snipped it all, because it is a sin to repeat a falsehood]
Every single statement by Howland regarding the history, meaning, and
legal effect of the laws governing the operation of a motor vehicle
--in California or elsewhere --is completely false. The licensing of
motor vehicles and their operators is an exercise of the police power
of the state for the protection of the health and welfare of its
residents and guests. The Uniform Commercial Code has absolutely no
bearing on the subject of such licensing, in California or elsewhere.
stephenh
Wyatt Copple (wyatt...@atlantech.net) wrote:
: In article <stephenhD...@netcom.com>,
: step...@netcom.com (stephenh) wrote:
: >Can one sign a California Driver's license with one's name
: >and the phrase "without prejudice UCC 1-207"?
: Exactly what would this accomplish? This seems to me
: another of the ploys that some people seem to try to pull.
: The UCC is intened to regulate commerce. I'd ask myself,
: "What doI think section 1-207 has to do with obtaining a
: driver's license?". The UCC is not law in al 50 states, and
: is not necessarily enacted verbatim in those states that do
: operate under UCC principles. Moreover, the laws governing
: the issuance of driver's licenses (or other licenses and
: permits) are likely to be entirely separate from the UCC.
I have heard it claimed that common law rights are reserved
when signing a driver's license in this manner. In particular,
if there is no injured party to an event, then no crime
is committed and no penalty is leviable (so the claim goes).
Steve
Dan Evans
In <4n65gl$8...@news.arc.nasa.gov>, how...@Priss.com (Curt Howland) writes:
>|> In article <stephenhD...@netcom.com>,
>|> step...@netcom.com (stephenh) wrote:
>|> >Can one sign a California Driver's license with one's name
>|> >and the phrase "without prejudice UCC 1-207"?
>The fact that people are led to believe that they need
>a license to exercise the right to travel freely by the
>accepted modes of the day is pure $$.
There is no constitutional right to operate a motor
vehicle, and laws requiring a driver's license are
constitutional.
>Ever wonder why speeding is prosecuted as an "infraction"?
>Because you didn't BREAK THE LAW.
My dictionary defines "infraction" as "the act of breaching."
There is no difference between "breaching" and "breaking."
The use of the word "infraction" is nothing but bureaucratese
for "breaking the law."
>The UCC covers business
>contracts, which are always made "as per the laws of"
>some state, or the Federal United States. That's why
>companies say things like "a California company", which
>means that their contracts are covered by the laws of
>California unless specifically stated otherwise.
A "California corporation" is a corporation formed in
California. Questions of corporate law are governed by
California law, but questions of commercial law are
governed by the state in which the commerce takes place.
So a California corporation doing business in New York is
subject to New York laws for business transacted in New
York.
Having said that, I should also explain that there is some
freedom is selecting what laws apply. If a California
corporation and a New York corporation enter into a
contract that will be performed in Illinois, they can agree
whether the contract will be governed by the laws of
California, New York, or Illinois, and their agreement
will usually be enforced in accordance with the laws of
the state they select.
Most companies which enter into consumer contracts in a
number of states (like car rental companies) usually try
to specifiy that their home state laws apply, usually for
consistency, but sometimes it gives them an edge on the
consumer.
>The Department of Motor Vehicals is a California company,
>and your drivers license is a contract. The UCC applies,
>and section 1-207 is ratified in California.
The Department of Motor Vehicles is not a company, it is
an agency of the government of California.
A driver's license is not a contract.
The Uniform Commercial Code does not apply to all
contracts, only those involving goods (for example,
the UCC does not apply to real estate contracts or
employment contracts), and it certainly wouldn't
apply to a driver's license even if a driver's license
were a contract (which it isn't).
Dan Evans ************************
http://www.netaxs.com/~evansdb
This is not a legal opinion unless
you agreed to pay for it.
**********************************
jthom
In <stephenhD...@netcom.com>, step...@netcom.com (stephenh) writes:
>Can one sign a California Driver's license with one's name
>and the phrase "without prejudice UCC 1-207"?
>
>because the signature is "not normal" or "contains a citation"???
>
>Does anyone have a CDL signed with the UCC clause?
>
Steve
drivers licenses. I can't imagine any set of circumstances where such an
endorsement would have any effect. Such language is usually used when
accepting a check for partial payment of a debt. The language makes it
clear that you are not accepting the check as full payment.
I hope this isn't one of those circumstances where someone is peddling
a miracle phrase that makes one immune from traffic tickets, DWI convictions,
police harassment, etc.
Jeffrey C. Thompson jt...@vnet.ibm.com
be...@mhv.net http://www1.mhv.net/~beff
The opinions expressed herein are my own. They do not necessarily
represent those of my employer, my accountant, my wife, . . .
Mark Wilkins
how...@Priss.com (Curt Howland) wrote:
>Better, however, after reading the above, to sign it
>"Non-Assumpsit", that is that only what is specifically
>and directly represented to the person is what is being
>agreed to (no shadow-contracts), and "Under Duress and
^^^^^^
>colour of law" since the California officials will
>lock you up for "driving without a licence" when you
>are simply traveling on the public highways in the
>accepted mode of the day and not doing business.
Do you suggest that there's a difference between
"Duress" and "duress?"
-- Mark
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Wilkins | "With the dog and the weapons, I'm
Walt Disney Feature Animation | prepared for the future..."
Burbank, CA |
mark_w...@fa.disney.com | -- Rodriguez
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not speak for The Walt Disney Company!
Joseph G. Adams
In article <5d7cc$11163.20b@NNTP>, <> wrote:
> wyatt...@atlantech.net (Wyatt Copple) writes:
>> step...@netcom.com (stephenh) wrote:
>>>Can one sign a California Driver's license with one's name
>>>and the phrase "without prejudice UCC 1-207"?
>>
>> Exactly what would this accomplish? This seems to me
>>another of the ploys that some people seem to try to pull.
>>The UCC is intened to regulate commerce. I'd ask myself,
>>"What doI think section 1-207 has to do with obtaining a
>>driver's license?". The UCC is not law in al 50 states, and
>>is not necessarily enacted verbatim in those states that do
>>operate under UCC principles. Moreover, the laws governing
>>the issuance of driver's licenses (or other licenses and
>>permits) are likely to be entirely separate from the UCC.
>>
>You sir are completely lost, your understanding of the UCC and the
>ensuing issues is for want. Read and learn dude....
>Scott
Indeed. Scott might want to read 1-102(2), which explains that the
UCC concerns commercial transactions, not getting a driver's license.
Looking at the official comment to 1-207, it explains that this section
"provides machinery for the continuation of performance along the lines
contemplated by the contract despite a pending dispute...." This has
no applicability to driver's licenses. Not only is it not a commercial
transaction, there's no preexisting contract to fight over.
BTW, I have right to travel cases on my web page at
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jgadams/taxcases.html
I don't think that any of the litigants were dumb enough to base their
arguments on the UCC, however.
--
Joseph G. Adams | "I'm a genius of useless stuff."
Stanford Law School, 2L | - Cracker
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jgadams/ |
san...@rmci.net
In <4n4g9e$e...@news.atlantech.net>, wyatt...@atlantech.net (Wyatt Copple) writes:
>In article <stephenhD...@netcom.com>,
san...@rmci.net
>: In article <stephenhD...@netcom.com>,
>: step...@netcom.com (stephenh) wrote:
>: >Can one sign a California Driver's license with one's name
>: >and the phrase "without prejudice UCC 1-207"?
>
>: Exactly what would this accomplish? This seems to me
>: another of the ploys that some people seem to try to pull.
>: The UCC is intened to regulate commerce. I'd ask myself,
>: "What doI think section 1-207 has to do with obtaining a
>: driver's license?". The UCC is not law in al 50 states, and
>: is not necessarily enacted verbatim in those states that do
>: operate under UCC principles. Moreover, the laws governing
>: the issuance of driver's licenses (or other licenses and
>: permits) are likely to be entirely separate from the UCC.
>
>when signing a driver's license in this manner. In particular,
>if there is no injured party to an event, then no crime
>is committed and no penalty is leviable (so the claim goes).
>
>Steve
>
>
your signature. They will allow you to sign the un-photographed portion of
your license CDL or otherwise however you wish. If a Citizen knows what he
is doing he would be wise to photocopy this for future use as most DMV's discard
the un-photographed portion of the form. Just a heads up for the interested.
Scott
Tim Smith
In article <5d7cc$11163.20b@NNTP>, <> wrote:
>>the issuance of driver's licenses (or other licenses and
>>permits) are likely to be entirely separate from the UCC.
>>
>issues is for want. Read and learn dude....
Since the UCC itself says that it doesn't apply, and since the UCC is
entirely a creation of legislature, rather than a part of common law,
the first poster is correct, and you have no idea what you are talking
about. (Hint: this is why people who make UCC arguments about driver
licensing don't win in court).
--Tim Smith
FredmFghtr
That's true. My father and I have tried and tested this idea several
times to no avail. My father is appealing to New Jersey supreme court at
the moment, so we have to wait and see if this will work or not.
Better yet, get yourself some right to travel papers or an international
motorist qualification. With the IMQ you can still get tickets, but no
points will be assigned and they can never take your "license" away.
Don Cline
What are your qualifications to make that absurd ex cathedra staement?
--
Don Cline
frd...@primenet.com
==================================================
"... The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights
as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business
in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes
no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his
business, or to open his doors to an investigation... He
owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom,
beyond protection of his life and property. His rights are
such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the
organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by
due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution...
He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass
upon their rights." --HALE v. HENKEL, 210 U.S. at 74 (1905)
==================================================
Don Cline
eva...@netaxs.com@netaxs.com (Dan Evans) wrote:
>In <4n65gl$8...@news.arc.nasa.gov>, how...@Priss.com (Curt Howland) writes:
>>|> In article <stephenhD...@netcom.com>,
>>|> step...@netcom.com (stephenh) wrote:
>>|> >Can one sign a California Driver's license with one's name
>>|> >and the phrase "without prejudice UCC 1-207"?
>>The fact that people are led to believe that they need
>>a license to exercise the right to travel freely by the
>>accepted modes of the day is pure $$.
>There is no constitutional right to operate a motor
>vehicle, and laws requiring a driver's license are
>constitutional.
So saith the Wonderful Wizard of Oz without a shred of documentation.
Ever heard of Vern Holland, Dan? Arrested, the last I heard, 27 times
for operating a motor vehicle without a license and for operating and
unregistered, unlicensed vehicle. My information is rather old,
several years now, but the last I heard he had won every case. I also
believe he eventually quit driving, because it suddenly occurred to
him that a driver's license issued by the State puts him under Equity
(he knew that) and allows the State to absorb some of the liability
for his driving (he didn't know that). It occurred to him that in an
accident that was his fault, the rules of the common law would have
resulted in his victim owning his total productive ability until he
could restore that person or persons to the condition they were in
before the accident.
(I'm not supporting driving without a license or without registration;
I'm merely pointing out that under the common law, we not only have a
right to travel, we also have a right to travel "in the common mode of
transportation of the day." But our responsibilities are horrendous
when we do so.)
>>Ever wonder why speeding is prosecuted as an "infraction"?
>>Because you didn't BREAK THE LAW.
>My dictionary defines "infraction" as "the act of breaching."
>There is no difference between "breaching" and "breaking."
>The use of the word "infraction" is nothing but bureaucratese
>for "breaking the law."
Oh, gad, Dan. I hope you learn something about the law someday.
"Breaking" the "law" is a misdemeanor or a felony. It brings the
rules of common (criminal) law into play. "Breaching" a provision of
an Equity Code is equivalent to violation of contract, and a Supreme
Court decision 'way back when I was a teenager forced governments to
stop classifying breaches of equity code as misdemeanors.
The Motor Vehicle Code is not law; it is code. Your signature on your
driver's license signifies your acceptance of that code as governing
your conduct when operating a motor vehicle. If that's not a
"contract," then it might as well be because you aren't subject to it
if you don't agree to it in writing. It amounts to the same thing,
regardless of the backflips various courts may do to keep the people
from understanding how the system works to control them.
(Four paragraphs totally irrelevant to the instant discussion
snipped.)
>>The Department of Motor Vehicals is a California company,
>>and your drivers license is a contract. The UCC applies,
>>and section 1-207 is ratified in California.
>The Department of Motor Vehicles is not a company, it is
>an agency of the government of California.
On that, I will agree with you.
>A driver's license is not a contract.
On that, I will not agree with you. But rather than engage in an
"Uh-HUH, Michael!"; "Huh-UH, Michael!" kind of debate with you, I'll
just ask you: If the driver's license is not a contract, then just
what the hell is it? It's not based on criminal law, is it? If it
came under the Police Power, then it would have no authority unless it
were criminal law. If it comes under the Commercial Code, then it has
to be a contract of some kind, either between two parties or between
one party and the State. If it is not under either of those two, then
what authority gives the State the power to enforce the Motor Vehicle
Code?
>The Uniform Commercial Code does not apply to all
>contracts, only those involving goods (for example,
>the UCC does not apply to real estate contracts or
>employment contracts), and it certainly wouldn't
>apply to a driver's license even if a driver's license
>were a contract (which it isn't).
Well, let's see. So far, in various posts in various threads, you've
asserted that the Personal Income Tax imposed on a worker is an excise
(though the worker is not exercising any privilege granted by
government, and he can't shift the tax off onto anyone else, so by
definition it must be an illegal Direct Tax); you've asserted that an
IRS Form 1040 is neither compelled or not compelled (but nonetheless
required in violation of the Fifth Amendment); and now you are
claiming that a Driver's License and the Motor Vehicle Code is neither
criminal law nor civil code, but is nonetheless "constitutional" and
"required." You are going to make a really excellent cat-stomping,
back-shooting, men-women-and-children burning federal government
jackbooted thug, aren't you?
>Dan Evans ************************
>http://www.netaxs.com/~evansdb
>This is not a legal opinion unless
>you agreed to pay for it.
>**********************************
Don Cline
jthom@ wrote:
>In <stephenhD...@netcom.com>, step...@netcom.com (stephenh) writes:
>>Can one sign a California Driver's license with one's name
>>and the phrase "without prejudice UCC 1-207"?
>>
>>Is it legal for the Calif. DMV to refuse to grant a driver's license
>>because the signature is "not normal" or "contains a citation"???
>>
>>Does anyone have a CDL signed with the UCC clause?
>>
>Steve
> I don't know about CA, but in NY, UCC 1-207 has nothing to do with
>drivers licenses. I can't imagine any set of circumstances where such an
>endorsement would have any effect. Such language is usually used when
>accepting a check for partial payment of a debt. The language makes it
>clear that you are not accepting the check as full payment.
> I hope this isn't one of those circumstances where someone is peddling
>a miracle phrase that makes one immune from traffic tickets, DWI convictions,
>police harassment, etc.
Such a lack of creative thinking in the legal profession. (Sigh.)
Someone may be peddling it as a miracle phrase, but I hope not. There
are no magic bullets against government oppression; anything you do is
going to require sustained combat to prevail, with no guarantee of
prevailing. But it pays to have as many options in your arsenal as
possible, and just because one hasn't been recognized by a court
doesn't mean it is of no value. For example, for fifteen years I have
been endorsing payroll checks with my signature followed by the words
"signed without prejudice." Not so I could try to collect twice,
because that would require an affirmative action on my part, and I'm
not going to do that. Rather, so that later on, in any legal combat
with government, I can show that I am a belligerant claimant of my
right to be secure from any "color" of jurisdiction under the Bank
Secrecy Act and the Commerce Clause as may be accrued by voluntarily
cashing my check.
>Jeffrey C. Thompson jt...@vnet.ibm.com
> be...@mhv.net http://www1.mhv.net/~beff
>The opinions expressed herein are my own. They do not necessarily
>represent those of my employer, my accountant, my wife, . . .
Don Cline
step...@netcom.com (stephenh) wrote:
>Wyatt Copple (wyatt...@atlantech.net) wrote:
>: In article <stephenhD...@netcom.com>,
>: step...@netcom.com (stephenh) wrote:
>: >Can one sign a California Driver's license with one's name
>: >and the phrase "without prejudice UCC 1-207"?
>: Exactly what would this accomplish? This seems to me
>: another of the ploys that some people seem to try to pull.
>: The UCC is intened to regulate commerce. I'd ask myself,
>: "What doI think section 1-207 has to do with obtaining a
>: driver's license?". The UCC is not law in al 50 states, and
>: is not necessarily enacted verbatim in those states that do
>: operate under UCC principles. Moreover, the laws governing
>: the issuance of driver's licenses (or other licenses and
>: permits) are likely to be entirely separate from the UCC.
>I have heard it claimed that common law rights are reserved
>when signing a driver's license in this manner. In particular,
>if there is no injured party to an event, then no crime
>is committed and no penalty is leviable (so the claim goes).
>Steve
Under the UCC, signing a document "without prejudice" or just "wp"
establishes that your signature is for identification purposes only
and all your natural rights are reserved (not waived by any contract).
That is one of the main reasons the Motor Vehicle Departments will not
permit you to sign your license with any suffix at all, not even
"M.D.", "Ph.D.", or "J.D.".
(I add a note to the back of my license later that says "My signature
on the obverse is for identification purposes only and does not
subject me to the terms of any unrevealed contract with government."
If I received a traffic ticket (I'd better not, in my job), I would
sign it with my signature followed by ",wp" and later I would decide
whether to appear at the appointed time, or make them try to acquire
jurisdiction over me with a bench warrant. I would only do this if
the offense with which I am charged is clearly fraudulent, for the
purpose of harassment, or something similar. Even then I might go
fight it for the sheer joy of kicking ass and taking names in court..
The "wp" just increases my options and my perception of options if I
decide to make a real fight of it.
Like any other right, it cannot prevail except by sustained combat in
the legal arena.
Robin D. Roberts
Onceupon a time, in a land far way, frd...@primenet.com (Don Cline)
wrote:
>The Motor Vehicle Code is not law; it is code. Your signature on your
>driver's license signifies your acceptance of that code as governing
>your conduct when operating a motor vehicle. If that's not a
>"contract," then it might as well be because you aren't subject to it
>if you don't agree to it in writing. It amounts to the same thing,
>regardless of the backflips various courts may do to keep the people
>from understanding how the system works to control them.
The state vehicular codes apply to anyone driving a vehicle regardless
of whatever silly thing they do or do not do to their license.
You cannot avoid the vehicle code with this silliness at all.
>>A driver's license is not a contract.
>On that, I will not agree with you. But rather than engage in an
>"Uh-HUH, Michael!"; "Huh-UH, Michael!" kind of debate with you, I'll
>just ask you: If the driver's license is not a contract, then just
>what the hell is it? It's not based on criminal law, is it? If it
>came under the Police Power, then it would have no authority unless it
>were criminal law. If it comes under the Commercial Code, then it has
>to be a contract of some kind, either between two parties or between
>one party and the State. If it is not under either of those two, then
>what authority gives the State the power to enforce the Motor Vehicle
>Code?
It is the police powers of the state, and they can and will enforce no
matter what silly things you do to your license.
Speaking of Wizard of Oz, this Oz mode of making up law doesn't get
you anywhere.
>>The Uniform Commercial Code does not apply to all
>>contracts, only those involving goods (for example,
>>the UCC does not apply to real estate contracts or
>>employment contracts), and it certainly wouldn't
>>apply to a driver's license even if a driver's license
>>were a contract (which it isn't).
>Well, let's see. So far, in various posts in various threads, you've
>asserted that the Personal Income Tax imposed on a worker is an excise
>(though the worker is not exercising any privilege granted by
>government, and he can't shift the tax off onto anyone else, so by
>definition it must be an illegal Direct Tax); you've asserted that an
>IRS Form 1040 is neither compelled or not compelled (but nonetheless
>required in violation of the Fifth Amendment); and now you are
>claiming that a Driver's License and the Motor Vehicle Code is neither
>criminal law nor civil code, but is nonetheless "constitutional" and
>"required." You are going to make a really excellent cat-stomping,
>back-shooting, men-women-and-children burning federal government
>jackbooted thug, aren't you?
Interesting that you were completely unable to respond to the point
that you quoted. All non sequitors and wrong. A state's motor
vehicle code is enforced in the same manner as its Business and
Professions code, its health code, its Fish and Game code, its
Corporations code, its Family Code, etc. etc. etc.
But any reference to the UCC is just silly.
And taking quotations out of context and pretending that they are
broad pronoucements of law on completely unrelated subjects is more
silliness.
sci...@ix.netcom.com Robin Roberts Ventura County, CA --- DVC
"A church is not the less sacred because curs frequently lift up their leg
against it, and affront the wall: It is the nature of dogs." Cato's Letters.
==PGP 2.6 key on request - and if Freeh doesn't like it, he can kiss mine==
William H. Hinkle
In <4na67j$d...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> frd...@primenet.com (Don Cline)
writes:
>whha...@ix.netcom.com(William H. Hinkle ) wrote:
>
>>In <4n65gl$8...@news.arc.nasa.gov> how...@Priss.com (Curt Howland)
>>writes:
>>[snipped it all, because it is a sin to repeat a falsehood]
>
>>Every single statement by Howland regarding the history, meaning, and
>>legal effect of the laws governing the operation of a motor vehicle
>>--in California or elsewhere --is completely false. The licensing of
>>motor vehicles and their operators is an exercise of the police power
>>of the state for the protection of the health and welfare of its
>>residents and guests. The Uniform Commercial Code has absolutely no
>>bearing on the subject of such licensing, in California or elsewhere.
>
>What are your qualifications to make that absurd ex cathedra staement?
>
requirement. I used that precious ability to read (and the God-given ability to
comprehend) throughout the next 30+ years, to learn as much as I could about a
whole lot of different subjects. On most subjects, I'm a dilettante; on most
categories of constitutional law, and the history and development of the
constitutional powers of governments, I'm an expert.
I know that you recognize no one as an "expert" on constitutional subjects
who bases any part of their expertise on court decisions, legislative history
and the like, because you regard all governmental agencies as corrupt and
anyone who follows their actions with interest as a "lackey". All that means is
that you choose to elevate your opinion -- whether based on information or just
inate prejudice -- over any objective information and the opinions of others.
We all value our own opinions more than the opinions of others, but most of us
do have the common sense to recognize that sometimes others have better
information at their disposal than we do.
Your writings over the last month or so have demonstrated that you
have virtually unshakeable faith in the opinion of anyone who hates
government as much as you do; that fact alone gives someone authority
in your mind, even if you know nothing else about them. Anyone who does
not hate government is despised and has no credence in your eyes, even
if you know nothing else about them. Many of us have similar blind
spots. I tend to trust the opinions of people with formal education
more than those without. I tend even more to trust the opinions of
people who I know to be "liberal" with respect to race, religion,
sexual orientation, reproductive choice, and the like more than the
opinions of people who are part of what I regard as the "radical
right". Occasionally, I find that those people are no more trustworthy,
smart or likeable than the people whose opinions I tend to despise. I'm
sure you occasionally find that some of your government-hating
compatriots are stupid assholes.
Just once, why don't you try to read something without the blinders
imposed by your hatred of govenment? You might actually find that
someone who doesn't agree with you has something worthwhile to say.
Bill
>>Ever wonder why speeding is prosecuted as an "infraction"?
>>Because you didn't BREAK THE LAW.
>
>My dictionary defines "infraction" as "the act of breaching."
>There is no difference between "breaching" and "breaking."
>The use of the word "infraction" is nothing but bureaucratese
>for "breaking the law."
In California law three levels of offense are defined: infraction,
misdemeanor and felony. They are defined based upon the severity of the
penalty. Infraction is the lowest and usually applies to motor vehicle
and license type violations. With proper identification, misdemeanors are
citeable offenses allowing a citation(or summons) to be issued to the
alleged violator with their signature and promise to appear in the named
court on the designated date to defend themself against the charge. This
procedure cuts down on law enforcement time, court time and does not
besmirch the criminal record of the individual involved (at least to any
great degree). It is still a violation of the law but not considered
serious enough to arrest, book, fingerprint, arraign, etc. the violator.
If you have a problem with infractions then perhaps the state legislation
can remove that word and make all traffic violations a misdemeanor. So
next time you run a stop sign (or speed) you can be cuffed, stuffed and
booked and spend the night with bubba. Gee, I think I kind of like the
idea of traffic infractions.
Dan Howell
In article <stephenhD...@netcom.com>, step...@netcom.com (stephenh) writes:
> Can one sign a California Driver's license with one's name
> and the phrase "without prejudice UCC 1-207"?
>
> because the signature is "not normal" or "contains a citation"???
I can't find anything in the Vehicle Code which allows the DMV to refuse
to issue a license on the grounds that the signature is "not normal" or
"contains a citation". However, I'm not familiar with the case law,
if any, on this subject.
I doubt that putting this phrase on your license would have any legal
effect whatsoever, as the U.C.C. does not apply to driver's licenses.
This is not legal advice. Do your own research or consult an attorney.
--
Dan Howell <dho...@es.xerox.com> <-- notice NEW e-mail address!
stephenh
FredmFghtr (fredm...@aol.com) wrote:
: That's true. My father and I have tried and tested this idea several
How can one get an IMQ?
Thanks,
Steve
stephenh
Curt Howland (how...@Priss.com) wrote:
...
: The Department of Motor Vehicals is a California company,
: and your drivers license is a contract. The UCC applies,
: and section 1-207 is ratified in California.
: Better, however, after reading the above, to sign it
: "Non-Assumpsit", that is that only what is specifically
: and directly represented to the person is what is being
: agreed to (no shadow-contracts),
What is being directly represented by signing for a driver's license?
It seemed somehow that there would be some sort of reference
to the Vehicle code...
: and "Under Duress and
: colour of law" since the California officials will
: lock you up for "driving without a licence" when you
: are simply traveling on the public highways in the
: accepted mode of the day and not doing business.
: I don't advocate not getting a drivers license unless
: you do all the paperwork to assert it as the right to
: travel that it is. There is no cookie-cutter way to
What kind of paperwork would that be?
: back the DMV into the corner on the issue, each case
: must be taken seperately. It is not for the faint of
: heart, nor does it stop there... Remember the "Franchise
: Tax Board"? When did you get your license to work from
: the State? Yet, you pay your % franchise fee just to work....
Seems to me the courts and police are stacked against the citizen.
Harrassment can be done by simply locking the person up for 48
hours in a cold room, then releasing the person (minus selective
contents found on his person), then locking him or her up again.
With or without a beating for having "resisted arrest".
There are no videotape machines in the jail office or (normally)
on the streets where police do their thing... One may be
perfectly legal according to the law, and still have a very rough
time in practice.
Steve
stephenh
Joseph G. Adams (jga...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: In article <5d7cc$11163.20b@NNTP>, <> wrote:
: > wyatt...@atlantech.net (Wyatt Copple) writes:
: >> step...@netcom.com (stephenh) wrote:
: >>>Can one sign a California Driver's license with one's name
: >>>and the phrase "without prejudice UCC 1-207"?
: >>
: >> Exactly what would this accomplish? This seems to me
: >>another of the ploys that some people seem to try to pull.
: >>The UCC is intened to regulate commerce. I'd ask myself,
: >>"What doI think section 1-207 has to do with obtaining a
: >>driver's license?". The UCC is not law in al 50 states, and
: >>is not necessarily enacted verbatim in those states that do
: >>operate under UCC principles. Moreover, the laws governing
: >>the issuance of driver's licenses (or other licenses and
: >>permits) are likely to be entirely separate from the UCC.
: >>
: >You sir are completely lost, your understanding of the UCC and the
: >ensuing issues is for want. Read and learn dude....
: >Scott
: Indeed. Scott might want to read 1-102(2), which explains that the
: UCC concerns commercial transactions, not getting a driver's license.
: Looking at the official comment to 1-207, it explains that this section
: "provides machinery for the continuation of performance along the lines
: contemplated by the contract despite a pending dispute...." This has
: no applicability to driver's licenses. Not only is it not a commercial
: transaction, there's no preexisting contract to fight over.
: BTW, I have right to travel cases on my web page at
: http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jgadams/taxcases.html
: I don't think that any of the litigants were dumb enough to base their
: arguments on the UCC, however.
Wyatt, Joseph,
Then you would agree that California DMV has no right and no reason
to refuse someone who signed their name "<name>, without prejudice UCC 1-207".
Or "..., non-Assumpsit". Please correct me if I have misinterpreted
your position(s).
Where does the DMV code say that DMV can reject a driver's license
application on the basis of how one signs one's name?
Here's the 1993 Calif. Vehicle Code:
Signature and Verification
12802. Every application shall be signed and verified by the applicant
before a person authorized to administer oaths and the applicant shall
submit such evidence of ages as the department may require...
(remainder appears to me to pertain to minors).
What can a person do if the state refuses to grant a license
and there is no valid reason for doing so?
(Does the law of necessity apply in commuting to and from work?)
Steve
jthom
In <4na67o$d...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, frd...@primenet.com (Don Cline) writes:
<snip>
>Such a lack of creative thinking in the legal profession. (Sigh.)
I'm really sorry to hear that I'm not creative. However, I am a realist.
I think the odds of wining this type of argument in a traffic court, in
front of a traffic court judge, with a traffic officer next to me, and
150 other traffic violators waiting behind me for the courts time is
about the same as my winning the lottery. Then again, I've been known
to purchase a lottery ticket or two, so . . .
If you want to go out, get a ticket, then try this argument, go ahead.
Just let me know first, because I'd like to be there to see it -- it should
be interesting. You can put together these theories about natural rights
and the UCC's bearing on your license, but the court (at least any court
that I've been in) won't accept them and you'll lose. In my book, a nice
sounding argument that doesn't win is just that -- a nice sounding argument.
Also, in another post, you claimed that there was a gentleman that used
a similar argument and won 27 or so times but finally decided to stop driving
because of the liability involved. I don't buy that yet, but if you can provide
cites to the cases, I'll be more than happy to look them up. If nothing else
just to see if (1) it is just an urban legend and didn't really happen, (2) the
gentleman won for other reasons, or (3) the world is coming to the end and
a court actually accepted these types of arguments for once.
Carroll A Lassettre
In article <stephenhD...@netcom.com>,
application, they said any words added to the application by the signer
would have no effect on the rights of the signer.
Joseph G. Adams
stephenh <step...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Joseph G. Adams (jga...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>: > wyatt...@atlantech.net (Wyatt Copple) writes:
>
>: >> step...@netcom.com (stephenh) wrote:
>: >>>Can one sign a California Driver's license with one's name
>: >>>and the phrase "without prejudice UCC 1-207"?
>: >>
>: >> Exactly what would this accomplish? This seems to me
>: >>another of the ploys that some people seem to try to pull.
>: >>The UCC is intened to regulate commerce.
>
>: Indeed. Scott might want to read 1-102(2), which explains that the
>: UCC concerns commercial transactions, not getting a driver's license.
>
>Then you would agree that California DMV has no right and no reason
>to refuse someone who signed their name "<name>, without prejudice UCC 1-207".
>Or "..., non-Assumpsit". Please correct me if I have misinterpreted
>your position(s).
The point is, writing UCC 1-207 doesn't do anything because it doesn't
apply to driver's license. It has exactly the same effect as copying a
manslaughter statute or a securities antifraud law onto the license.
These are laws, but they don't concern driver's licenses. C'mon guys,
get a clue.
Bill
In article <4nae3c$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, fredm...@aol.com
(FredmFghtr) wrote:
>Better yet, get yourself some right to travel papers or an international
>motorist qualification. With the IMQ you can still get tickets, but no
>points will be assigned and they can never take your "license" away.
I may be mistaken as I am going to wing this from memory. I understood
that the "international driver license" was valid in all countries that
recognize them except for the country of issue. The reason is somewhat
obvious. If you live in the issuing country you would be expected to
obtain the local license. Possessing a USA international license would be
of no value in the USA. Seems you would be right back to the start.
Bill
In article <4na67i$d...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, frd...@primenet.com (Don
Cline) wrote:
>Oh, gad, Dan. I hope you learn something about the law someday.
>"Breaking" the "law" is a misdemeanor or a felony. It brings the
>rules of common (criminal) law into play. "Breaching" a provision of
>an Equity Code is equivalent to violation of contract, and a Supreme
>Court decision 'way back when I was a teenager forced governments to
>stop classifying breaches of equity code as misdemeanors.
>
>The Motor Vehicle Code is not law; it is code. Your signature on your
>driver's license signifies your acceptance of that code as governing
>your conduct when operating a motor vehicle. If that's not a
>"contract," then it might as well be because you aren't subject to it
>if you don't agree to it in writing.
>Don Cline
How many times can Don Cline post and be wrong. It just boggles the
mind. Okay Mr. Constitutional Scholar (what university was that again),
why then do we call the California criminal law the California Penal
CODE? Yup, that is what it is called. You know what the Penal Code
covers? Robbery, rape, murder, burglary, arson, drugs and a whole bunch
of neat criminal type stuff. Are you stating that the California Penal
CODE is not the law, it is just a code? That is what you said, isn't it?
I guess it is impossible for you to learn. California law divides
CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS into three categories: infractions, misdemeanors and
felonies. All three are violations of the LAW but with varying
penalties. The vehicle code contains infractions, misdemeanors and felony
offenses. Only an idiot would think the california vehicle code is any
less "the law" than the penal code.
stephenh
Carroll A Lassettre (clas...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
: In article <stephenhD...@netcom.com>,
: stephenh <step...@netcom.com> wrote:
: >Where does the DMV code say that DMV can reject a driver's license
: >application on the basis of how one signs one's name?
:
: They did not say that the DMV would reject the driver's license
: application, they said any words added to the application by the signer
: would have no effect on the rights of the signer.
I know they didn't say that, but I am asking the question and the clarification.
Steve
san...@rmci.net
>> step...@netcom.com (stephenh) wrote:
>>: >>>Can one sign a California Driver's license with one's name
>>: >>>and the phrase "without prejudice UCC 1-207"?
>>: >>
>>: >> Exactly what would this accomplish? This seems to me
>>: >>another of the ploys that some people seem to try to pull.
>>: >>"What doI think section 1-207 has to do with obtaining a
>>: >>driver's license?". The UCC is not law in al 50 states, and
>>: >>is not necessarily enacted verbatim in those states that do
>>: >>operate under UCC principles. Moreover, the laws governing
>>: >>the issuance of driver's licenses (or other licenses and
>>: >>permits) are likely to be entirely separate from the UCC.
>>: >>
>>: >You sir are completely lost, your understanding of the UCC and the
>>: >ensuing issues is for want. Read and learn dude....
>>: >Scott
>>
>>
>>: UCC concerns commercial transactions, not getting a driver's license.
>>
so let me expand on what I said in an obviously too short of an explanation why
you don't know what you are supposedley talking about. The director of the "State
of Idaho's" DMV, in an official response to my request to sign my driver's license with
the UCC 1-207 comment said" Such a statement above your signature would be
in our opinion, and in the opinion of our lawyer's, unnacceptable, you may sign
the back of your application form in any way you see fit"
If in fact it is a worthless statement, why would they contest to it?
I know I am presenting this without cite's so let it stand as being my own
opinion that something smells funny.
Scott
Dr...@aol.com
wij...@bisonservices.com (Bill) wrote:
The IMQ is a fraudulent, fake DL issued by some Patriot in the name of
the geographic entity British West Indies (which was but is no longer
a jurisdiction).
You are confusing it with a real International Drivers License which
you can get from AAA before you go abroad (and which is not valid in
the US, if obtained here).
andy
Don Cline
step...@netcom.com (stephenh) wrote:
>FredmFghtr (fredm...@aol.com) wrote:
>: That's true. My father and I have tried and tested this idea several
>: times to no avail. My father is appealing to New Jersey supreme court at
>: the moment, so we have to wait and see if this will work or not.
>: Better yet, get yourself some right to travel papers or an international
>: motorist qualification. With the IMQ you can still get tickets, but no
>: points will be assigned and they can never take your "license" away.
>How can one get an IMQ?
You can get one by applying at any American Automobile Association
office. However, they are not valid in the same country in which they
are issued. They are also not valid if the officer issuing the ticket
knows, or has reason to believe, you have resided in the State more
than ten days. Some States, including Arizona, do not recognize them
as valid at all, though officers will make a value judgment at the
time a ticket is given as to whether the ticket would serve any
purpose or not. As a driving instructor, I cannot even teach someone
to drive who holds an IMQ -- they must have a permit.
>Thanks,
>Steve
Don Cline
jthom@ wrote:
>In <4na67o$d...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, frd...@primenet.com (Don Cline) writes:
><snip>
>>Such a lack of creative thinking in the legal profession. (Sigh.)
><snip>
>I'm really sorry to hear that I'm not creative. However, I am a realist.
>I think the odds of wining this type of argument in a traffic court, in
>front of a traffic court judge, with a traffic officer next to me, and
>150 other traffic violators waiting behind me for the courts time is
>about the same as my winning the lottery. Then again, I've been known
>to purchase a lottery ticket or two, so . . .
Oh, you're RIGHT about that! Didn't I make that clear? You are never
going to win at the traffic court level, and it is very doubtful you
will ever win at the appeals level. But you may win at the State
Supreme Court level. That's why I said it's going to be painful.
>If you want to go out, get a ticket, then try this argument, go ahead.
>Just let me know first, because I'd like to be there to see it -- it should
>be interesting. You can put together these theories about natural rights
>and the UCC's bearing on your license, but the court (at least any court
>that I've been in) won't accept them and you'll lose. In my book, a nice
>sounding argument that doesn't win is just that -- a nice sounding argument.
>Also, in another post, you claimed that there was a gentleman that used
>a similar argument and won 27 or so times but finally decided to stop driving
>because of the liability involved. I don't buy that yet, but if you can provide
>cites to the cases, I'll be more than happy to look them up. If nothing else
>just to see if (1) it is just an urban legend and didn't really happen, (2) the
>gentleman won for other reasons, or (3) the world is coming to the end and
>a court actually accepted these types of arguments for once.
Check with the Freeman's Education Association in Oklahoma City. This
is all very old data; they may not even be advocating it any more. I
haven't kept up with their activities for years. Let's see, the last
number I have for them is (918) 622-9486. At least they might be able
to give you some cites.
>Jeffrey C. Thompson jt...@vnet.ibm.com
> be...@mhv.net http://www1.mhv.net/~beff
>The opinions expressed herein are my own. They do not necessarily
>represent those of my employer, my accountant, my wife, . . .
Don Cline
sci...@ix.netcom.com (Robin D. Roberts) wrote:
>Onceupon a time, in a land far way, frd...@primenet.com (Don Cline)
>wrote:
>>The Motor Vehicle Code is not law; it is code. Your signature on your
>>driver's license signifies your acceptance of that code as governing
>>your conduct when operating a motor vehicle. If that's not a
>>"contract," then it might as well be because you aren't subject to it
>>if you don't agree to it in writing. It amounts to the same thing,
>>regardless of the backflips various courts may do to keep the people
>>from understanding how the system works to control them.
>The state vehicular codes apply to anyone driving a vehicle regardless
>of whatever silly thing they do or do not do to their license.
>You cannot avoid the vehicle code with this silliness at all.
Vern Holland has proved otherwise.
>>>A driver's license is not a contract.
>>On that, I will not agree with you. But rather than engage in an
>>"Uh-HUH, Michael!"; "Huh-UH, Michael!" kind of debate with you, I'll
>>just ask you: If the driver's license is not a contract, then just
>>what the hell is it? It's not based on criminal law, is it? If it
>>came under the Police Power, then it would have no authority unless it
>>were criminal law. If it comes under the Commercial Code, then it has
>>to be a contract of some kind, either between two parties or between
>>one party and the State. If it is not under either of those two, then
>>what authority gives the State the power to enforce the Motor Vehicle
>>Code?
>It is the police powers of the state, and they can and will enforce no
>matter what silly things you do to your license.
Oh, probably so. But not according to law.
>Speaking of Wizard of Oz, this Oz mode of making up law doesn't get
>you anywhere.
Probably not. But then, asking government to stay within the law
doesn't get you anywhere, either.
>>>The Uniform Commercial Code does not apply to all
>>>contracts, only those involving goods (for example,
>>>the UCC does not apply to real estate contracts or
>>>employment contracts), and it certainly wouldn't
>>>apply to a driver's license even if a driver's license
>>>were a contract (which it isn't).
>>Well, let's see. So far, in various posts in various threads, you've
>>asserted that the Personal Income Tax imposed on a worker is an excise
>>(though the worker is not exercising any privilege granted by
>>government, and he can't shift the tax off onto anyone else, so by
>>definition it must be an illegal Direct Tax); you've asserted that an
>>IRS Form 1040 is neither compelled or not compelled (but nonetheless
>>required in violation of the Fifth Amendment); and now you are
>>claiming that a Driver's License and the Motor Vehicle Code is neither
>>criminal law nor civil code, but is nonetheless "constitutional" and
>>"required." You are going to make a really excellent cat-stomping,
>>back-shooting, men-women-and-children burning federal government
>>jackbooted thug, aren't you?
>Interesting that you were completely unable to respond to the point
>that you quoted. All non sequitors and wrong. A state's motor
>vehicle code is enforced in the same manner as its Business and
>Professions code, its health code, its Fish and Game code, its
>Corporations code, its Family Code, etc. etc. etc.
So you are asserting that if the State wishes to impose the
regulations of the Business and Profession Code upon me, though I am
engaged in neither, the State has the lawful power to do this? If I
am, say, building model airplanes, the State has the lawful authority
to impose, say, the Corporations Code upon me?
If that's what you are saying, then you are being silly. To be
subject to a code, you have to be doing that which the code covers.
If the Motor Vehicle Code applies to "drivers," and the definition of
"driver" is one who "drives for hire," then the Motor Vehicle Code
does not cover a vehicle operator who drives for pleasure. Indeed, a
few years ago some guy with more gonads than brains hooked up a dozen
helium-filled weather balloons to a lawn chair and went for a ride in
Los Angeles -- right on the final approach path to LAX. He carried a
BB-gun to control his rate of ascent, and had quite a flight. The
incoming aircraft to LAX also had quite a fun time of it. The FAA hit
him with every violation they could think of, but the only one they
could make stick was flying without a license. The rest didn't apply
because you have to be licensed for them to apply. (He was sued for
damages civilly, however.)
Under the Police Power, to preserve public safety, the State
government has the authority to compel proof of competency. Once. It
does not necessarily have the authority to compel a "license" to do
that which one may already do by right. But the risk to one's
fortune, such as it is, and property, and liberty, is enormous
(civilly) if you go that route and hurt someone in the process.
>But any reference to the UCC is just silly.
Only if you believe government has the lawful power to restrict any
activity whatsoever on any grounds whatsoever.
>And taking quotations out of context and pretending that they are
>broad pronoucements of law on completely unrelated subjects is more
>silliness.
And there you are not being clear as to what you are talking about.
[Disclaimer to all the above. I feel very uncomfortable discussing
this from this position, because while I am certain it is true from a
fundamental legal standpoint, I don't necessarily agree it is an
appropriate avenue for redress of government. In fact, I generally
disagree with those who advocate it. The risks are horrendous, and
little if any significant liberty is gained in exchange.]
>sci...@ix.netcom.com Robin Roberts Ventura County, CA --- DVC
>"A church is not the less sacred because curs frequently lift up their leg
>against it, and affront the wall: It is the nature of dogs." Cato's Letters.
>==PGP 2.6 key on request - and if Freeh doesn't like it, he can kiss mine==
Don Cline
whha...@ix.netcom.com(William H. Hinkle ) wrote:
>In <4na67j$d...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> frd...@primenet.com (Don Cline)
>writes:
>>
>>whha...@ix.netcom.com(William H. Hinkle ) wrote:
>>
>>>In <4n65gl$8...@news.arc.nasa.gov> how...@Priss.com (Curt Howland)
>>>writes:
>>>[snipped it all, because it is a sin to repeat a falsehood]
>>
>>>Every single statement by Howland regarding the history, meaning, and
>>>legal effect of the laws governing the operation of a motor vehicle
>>>--in California or elsewhere --is completely false. The licensing of
>>>motor vehicles and their operators is an exercise of the police power
>>>of the state for the protection of the health and welfare of its
>>>residents and guests. The Uniform Commercial Code has absolutely no
>>>bearing on the subject of such licensing, in California or elsewhere.
>>
>>What are your qualifications to make that absurd ex cathedra staement?
>>
>Way back when I graduated from high school, Don, there was a literacy
>requirement. I used that precious ability to read (and the God-given ability to
>comprehend) throughout the next 30+ years, to learn as much as I could about a
>whole lot of different subjects. On most subjects, I'm a dilettante; on most
>categories of constitutional law, and the history and development of the
>constitutional powers of governments, I'm an expert.
Ah. That does not appear to pre-suppose an acquaintance with
fundamental State laws governing "driving for hire." I think it is
most interesting that while there is a significant legal difference
between "travel," "driving," and "operating a motor vehicle," the
courts that have ruled that "driving is a privilege" (most notably the
California Supreme Court) have done so on the grounds that "driving"
means "driving for hire," which is a commercial activity. The driver
under discussion is not driving for hire; he is a private individual
not (supposedly) exercising any privilege granted by government; the
ruling doesn't apply to him, but it is enforced over him anyway.
The thing I find enormously strange is that a ruling to the effect
that "operating a motor vehicle is a privilege" could be made to stick
on everyone, private and commercial alike. But then, the CSC was not
presented with that controversy, was it? So it had to rule in a
manner that results in misapplication of the law, which is a violation
of rights, to avoid the appearance that the people were being given
carte blanche to drive without accountability.
What are my qualifications for discussing this? I am a professional
driving instructor. And contrary to what you may think, except for
the unlawful application of taxes associated with it, I think the
current system is in most cases preferable to what some might call the
exercise of a common law right to drive a car. And I can cite
specific reasons for that opinion.
> I know that you recognize no one as an "expert" on constitutional subjects
>who bases any part of their expertise on court decisions, legislative history
>and the like,
Not true at all. It is not that they base any part of their expertise
on court decisions, legislative history, and the like. It is the fact
they can't read plain English of those rulings. For example, when a
ruling is applied to a corporation, it can't apply with equal facility
to a natural individual at law who is exercising no privilege granted
by government. Or when they base their argument on court rulings that
are either contradictory, or alternatively, talk out of both sides of
their mouth in the same ruling. (Besides, you know what an "expert"
is: An "x" is an unknown, and a "spurt" is a drip under pressure.)
:-)
> because you regard all governmental agencies as corrupt and
>anyone who follows their actions with interest as a "lackey".
No, no, no. Either you are just honestly wrong, or you are
overstating your case out of annoyance. I only regard those
governmental agencies as corrupt who maliciously and with concious
intent deprive people of their inherited and unalienable rights our
true Constitutional government was founded to protect. The fact that
that encompasses nearly all of them is not my fault.
And anyone who follows their actions with interest is a "lackey"? Not
hardly! _I_ follow their actions with interest, and I am sure as hell
no lackey. The ones I regard as their lackeys are those who support
and condone and defend lawless, and sometimes murderous, government
actions as though government has a perfect Divine Right to do any
damned thing it wants to do and murder anyone it feels like to make a
point. It does not have any power or Consent of the Governed to do
that, and I am not going to stand by and tolerate someone's asinine
assertions that it does whether that assertion comes from a court,
from a jackbooted thug, or from a court-groupie or thug-groupie.
> All that means is
>that you choose to elevate your opinion -- whether based on information or just
>inate prejudice -- over any objective information and the opinions of others.
Again I have to reply to the contrary: The information I have
elevated my opinion over has not been "objective information." It has
been subjective and misguided and misapplied, and it many cases
intentionally so using Beria's techniques of Psychopolitical argument,
and the purpose of those Psychopolitical arguments has been to destroy
all thought processes leading to any conclusion supporting individual
independence and liberty, and to destroy the credibility of anyone
supporting individual independence and liberty.
>We all value our own opinions more than the opinions of others, but most of us
>do have the common sense to recognize that sometimes others have better
>information at their disposal than we do.
Good. I recommend you and your cohorts take that advice too. It has
been apparent that in some respects, at least, my information has been
better than yours.
> Your writings over the last month or so have demonstrated that you
>have virtually unshakeable faith in the opinion of anyone who hates
>government as much as you do;
Again: I do not hate government. I hate LAWLESS government. You
should too. (Just as I don't protest taxes. I only protest ILLEGAL
taxes, and ILLEGALLY APPLIED taxes. You should too.) And, in case
you haven't noticed, my opinion has diverged significantly from
several posters on here with regard to matters other than the topic of
this thread, even when they agree with me on the topic of this thread.
Many of the situations to which you refer in the above clause are
based more on your assumption of what I believe than in what I
believe.
>that fact alone gives someone authority
>in your mind, even if you know nothing else about them. Anyone who does
>not hate government is despised and has no credence in your eyes, even
>if you know nothing else about them.
They are given no credence if their posting indicates a political
position based on ignorance of what is going on in this country. They
are despised only if they know, or purport to know, what's going on in
this country and are supporting it and claiming the rightness of those
operations in which people are deprived of their most fundamental
rights.
>Many of us have similar blind
>spots. I tend to trust the opinions of people with formal education
>more than those without.
That's a mistake. There is more intentional, orchestrated, directed,
and financed brainwashing in formal education than there ever can be
in the real world school of hard knocks. But it is no bigger a
mistake than trusting the people more without formal education than
those with. I recommend looking at their ideas and their presentation
of those ideas and their methodology more than their sheepskins. I
especially recommend looking at their integrity.
>I tend even more to trust the opinions of
>people who I know to be "liberal" with respect to race, religion,
>sexual orientation, reproductive choice, and the like more than the
>opinions of people who are part of what I regard as the "radical
>right".
Frankly, I don't trust either. I prefer to be around people I know to
be more "liberal" in those areas you list, but I don't trust their
principles and ethics to do the right thing when the chips are down
rather than finding the "easy way out." I find them liberal socially,
but fascist politically -- they want government to solve everything
for them, pay for their experimentation, and bail them out when they
make irresponsible lifestyle decisions. They want government to rob
everyone at the point of a gun to pay for their lifestyle choices.
They want government to force everyone to associate with them as
though no one had any right of freedom of association. They want
government to deprive everyone of their right to self defense, because
they are afraid someone is going to terminate their lifestyle with
extreme prejudice when they get too pushy with it. I reject all those
notions as proper functions of government, though as far as I am
concerned they can live however they want and reap whatever benefits
and consequences there may be without requiring anyone else to pay for
it or put up with their 'in your face' attitude.
So far as the "radical right" is concerned, I don't trust them any
more than I trust the liberals. They can live how they want, but they
aren't going to tell me how to live. With one hand they advocate the
right to keep and bear arms, and with the other hand they gut the
fourth amendment, not to mention the first amendment (re: Internet and
the CDA). Ultimately their objective is government power and control
over the people, the same as the leftists.
>Occasionally, I find that those people are no more trustworthy,
>smart or likeable than the people whose opinions I tend to despise. I'm
>sure you occasionally find that some of your government-hating
>compatriots are stupid assholes.
Absolutely. And you just shot down your own argument presented in
that paragraph, and the clause preceding it.
> Just once, why don't you try to read something without the blinders
>imposed by your hatred of govenment? You might actually find that
>someone who doesn't agree with you has something worthwhile to say.
Just once, why don't you remove the blinders and see that my hatred is
not of government. My hatred is for lawlessness under color of law.
My hatred is for those in government and without who are consciously
and knowingly advocating a total lockdown dictatorship, which is
definitely going to result if current trends continue.
You know, I used to be worried about government, but that was all.
When I saw what happened to Gordon Kahl and Sheriff Gene Mathews in
Arkansas, and knew the same thing had happened to at least a half
dozen other people around the country who called themselves "patriots"
in the preceding five years, "worry" became serious concern.
When I saw what happened at Ruby Ridge, and how every news report in
the mainstream press was straight from the Department of Justice
propaganda mill, and how the only details and accuracy I got was from
my contacts on the scene, serious concern became anger. This was
added to by unrelated events in other parts of the country, including
here, where people were roughed up and injured by Deputy Marshals
hunting for some guy the people didn't even know. And an
eighty-year-old woman had her shoulder twisted out of its socket
because she was taking pictures of their impromptu intimidation
theater. When I read an interview with the chief of the U.S.
Marshal's Service in the mainstream press and he said "There is never,
ever, a justification for killing a U.S. Marshal," I nearly went
ballistic.
And then, right on the heels of Ruby Ridge, came Waco. And then, just
recently, the #%@$^&#*#$@ assholes who participated in the murders at
Ruby Ridge were given the Marshal's Service' "Highest Awards for
Valor". For shooting a 14-year-old boy in the back and for shooting
his mother in the head as she nursed her infant daughter. I could
puke.
And by the way, William: The information I received from my contacts
at Ruby Ridge, at Waco, at Arkansas, and at several other little
goose-stepper events around this country has consistently proven to be
more detailed, more accurate, and more horrorific than the bland,
non-committal comments in the newspaper. This has been proven by
subsequent issues raised at trial, and mainstream commentaries. And
my contacts are all "right-wing" -- much more so than I am.
Terry Carroll
On 14 May 1996 07:44:05 -0700, frd...@primenet.com (Don Cline) wrote:
>Under the UCC, signing a document "without prejudice" or just "wp"
>establishes that your signature is for identification purposes only
>and all your natural rights are reserved (not waived by any contract).
[more gibberish deleted]
>Like any other right, it cannot prevail except by sustained combat in
>the legal arena.
And not even then.
--
Terry Carroll | "In a professional sports league game played in the
Santa Clara, CA | United States, the head referee ... shall ... in the
car...@tjc.com | event of conflicting calls, review instant replay to
Modell delenda est | determine the correct call." - House Bill H.R. 3096
Robert Miller
In article <4nbipf$9...@news.cp10.es.xerox.com> dho...@es.xerox.com (Dan Howell) writes:
>Subject: Re: signing Calif. Driver's License without prejudice UCC 1-207
>Xref: nntp0.mindspring.com alt.society.sovereign:14982 ca.politics:105500
>us.legal:2091 misc.legal:182505
>In article <stephenhD...@netcom.com>, step...@netcom.com (stephenh)
>writes:
>> Can one sign a California Driver's license with one's name
>> and the phrase "without prejudice UCC 1-207"?
Actualy it is a simple violation of a basic U.S. Constitutional Right " the
freedom to travel" to require a private citizen.
How does the Govenment get away with this? Simple!
I think Congressman Beck in 1933 says it better much than I.
From the Congressional Record " I think of all the damnable heresies that have
ever been suggested in connection with the Constitution, the doctrine of
emergency is the worst, it means that when Congress declares an emergency,
there is no Constitution. This means its death. It is the very doctrine that
the German chancellor is invoking today in the dying hours of the
parliamentary body of the German republic. Chancellor Hitler is at least
frank about it. We pay the Constitution lipservice, but the result is the
same.
On March 9th 1933 an Emergency was declared one of the proofs is Statutory
Jurisdiction alias "Marshall Law"
Yes I know I'm going to get flamed for this statement but it's true in this
day and age what kind of grid lock could 100 people exercising that right
in horse and buggy, in Atlanta during the Olympics. It would be interesting
to get 100 people in horse and buggy just to illustrate the point.
I'm shopping for my own buggy and I'm one individual but the point is just as
valid. There are only two laws
1. have a trangle reflector on the back.
2. I can't park in traffic.
This is funny a law that is still on the books is any car that approaches me
must stop and cover it with a tarp.
Maybe if a cop did hassel me I could make him cover his car with a tarp or
drive away :-)
Robert Miller
To many people afraid to call a spade a "spade"
Robert Miller
In article <stargazr.3...@mindspring.com> star...@mindspring.com (Robert Miller) writes:
>Newsgroups: alt.society.sovereign,ca.politics,us.legal,misc.legal
>Subject: Re: signing Calif. Driver's License without prejudice UCC 1-207
>In article <4nbipf$9...@news.cp10.es.xerox.com> dho...@es.xerox.com (Dan Howell)
>writes:
>>Subject: Re: signing Calif. Driver's License without prejudice UCC 1-207
>>Xref: nntp0.mindspring.com alt.society.sovereign:14982 ca.politics:105500
>>us.legal:2091 misc.legal:182505
>>In article <stephenhD...@netcom.com>, step...@netcom.com (stephenh)
>>writes:
>>> Can one sign a California Driver's license with one's name
>>> and the phrase "without prejudice UCC 1-207"?
Actualy it is a simple violation of a basic U.S. Constitutional Right " the
freedom to travel". A private citizen is not required to have a licience to
travel on public roads and streets.
How does the Govenment get away with this? Simple!
I think Congressman Beck in 1933 says it much better than I can.
From the Congressional Record:
" I think of all the damnable heresies that have ever been suggested in
connection with the Constitution, the doctrine of emergency is the worst, it
means that when Congress declares an emergency, there is no Constitution.
This means its death. It is the very doctrine that the German chancellor is
invoking today in the dying hours of the parliamentary body of the German
republic. Chancellor Hitler is at least frank about it. We pay the
Constitution lipservice, but the result is the same.
The Constitution did not give any authority for itself to be suspended. Not
even in time of WAR!
On March 9th 1933 an Emergency was declared one of the proofs is Statutory
Jurisdiction alias "Marshall Law"
Yes I know I'm going to get flamed for this statement but it's true in this
day and age what kind of grid lock could 100 people exercising that right
in horse and buggy, in Atlanta during the Olympics. It would be interesting
to get 100 people in horse and buggy just to illustrate the point.
I'm shopping for my own buggy and I'm one individual but the point is just as
valid. There are only two laws
1. have a trangle reflector on the back.
2. I can't park in traffic.
This law is still on the books. If any car approachs a horse or horse & buggy
the car must stop and the driver cover the car.
Dan Evans
>Actualy it is a simple violation of a basic U.S. Constitutional Right " the
>freedom to travel". A private citizen is not required to have a licience to
>travel on public roads and streets.
A private citizen is not required to have a license to travel, but
is required to have a license to drive.
stephenh
Dr...@aol.com wrote:
...
: You are confusing it with a real International Drivers License which
: you can get from AAA before you go abroad (and which is not valid in
: the US, if obtained here).
OK, if it's obtained abroad and then taken here, is it valid?
Another consideration: the last I heard, you may actually have 2 driver's
licenses, one for the state of residence and one for DC,(apparently) due
to overlapping jurisdictions. If the state license gets taken away, the DC
license remains valid. Professional truck and bus drivers often
have both licenses in case of a problem. To get a DC license,
one must go to DC (and probably at least have some sort of mailing address
there). FYI.
Steve
: andy
William H. Hinkle
In <4ni265$k...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> frd...@primenet.com (Don Cline)
writes:
[snip]
>Ah. That does not appear to pre-suppose an acquaintance with
>fundamental State laws governing "driving for hire." I think it is
>most interesting that while there is a significant legal difference
>between "travel," "driving," and "operating a motor vehicle," the
>courts that have ruled that "driving is a privilege" (most notably the
>California Supreme Court) have done so on the grounds that "driving"
>means "driving for hire," which is a commercial activity. The driver
>under discussion is not driving for hire; he is a private individual
>not (supposedly) exercising any privilege granted by government; the
>ruling doesn't apply to him, but it is enforced over him anyway.
>
>The thing I find enormously strange is that a ruling to the effect
>that "operating a motor vehicle is a privilege" could be made to stick
>on everyone, private and commercial alike. But then, the CSC was not
>presented with that controversy, was it? So it had to rule in a
>manner that results in misapplication of the law, which is a violation
>of rights, to avoid the appearance that the people were being given
>carte blanche to drive without accountability.
>
>What are my qualifications for discussing this? I am a professional
>driving instructor. And contrary to what you may think, except for
>the unlawful application of taxes associated with it, I think the
>current system is in most cases preferable to what some might call the
>exercise of a common law right to drive a car. And I can cite
>specific reasons for that opinion.
>
I guess your profession gives you plenty of time for creative
writing. In no state at any time has the power to regulate driving of
motor vehicles rested on the power to regulate commerce. At no time has
the power of the state to regulate the driving of motor vehicles rested
on any concept that it was a "privilege" granted by the state. Since
the beginning of civilization, governments have had, as an inherent
power, what is called the "police power" -- which includes the
authority to regulate those activities which are dangerous to people.
Robert Miller
In article <4nlja3$f...@netaxs.com> eva...@netaxs.com@netaxs.com (Dan Evans) writes:
>Newsgroups: alt.society.sovereign,ca.politics,us.legal,misc.legal
>Subject: Re: signing Calif. Driver's License without prejudice UCC 1-207
>In <stargazr.3...@mindspring.com>, star...@mindspring.com (Robert
>Miller) writes:
>>Actualy it is a simple violation of a basic U.S. Constitutional Right " the
>>freedom to travel". A private citizen is not required to have a licience to
>>travel on public roads and streets.
>A private citizen is not required to have a license to travel, but
>is required to have a license to drive.
Why is driving a car do much different than a horse and buggy? At one time
it was as uncommon to see cars on the road as it is to see people in a horse
and wagon. Imagine a million horse and wagon teams in any of our big cities.
Do you think they would be any less dangerous than a modern car?
And what about the "National State of Emergency" our country has been in
for over 60 years that has our Constitution suspended.
Have you read the Emergency and War Powers Act?
"We the People" are declaired the enemy as if there were an invasion or
insurrection. We have no Constitutional rights because we do not have a
Constitution. The Supreme Court has no power to act on this as long as we
remain in a State of Emergency.
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."
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus has been suspended. The
Govenment may confiscate a persons property as booty as if he were at War
with the U.S. Govenment.
In Schools all across America we learn of the Constitution but not that it has
been Suspended since the great depression.
>Dan Evans
Robert Miller
Like I've said befor "The people always get the govenment they deserve!
D.C.I.
In <stargazr.3...@mindspring.com> star...@mindspring.com
(Robert Miller) writes:
>
>In article <4nlja3$f...@netaxs.com> eva...@netaxs.com@netaxs.com
(Dan Evans) writes:
>>Newsgroups: alt.society.sovereign,ca.politics,us.legal,misc.legal
>>Subject: Re: signing Calif. Driver's License without prejudice UCC
1-207
>Why is driving a car do much different than a horse and buggy
CLIPPED
There is something a little different,
a horse can not travel 105 feet per
second . . .
DCI
Robert Miller
In article <319d3772....@news.aimnet.com> car...@tjc.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>From: car...@tjc.com (Terry Carroll)
>Newsgroups: alt.society.sovereign,ca.politics,us.legal,misc.legal
>Subject: Re: signing Calif. Driver's License without prejudice UCC 1-207
>On 14 May 1996 07:44:05 -0700, frd...@primenet.com (Don Cline) wrote:
>>Under the UCC, signing a document "without prejudice" or just "wp"
>>establishes that your signature is for identification purposes only
>>and all your natural rights are reserved (not waived by any contract).
Can a bank refuse to except my paychecks if I sign them "Without Prejudice
UCC 1-207? Do I have any recourse if they do besides go to my own bank?
The reason I ask is one bank had never heard of it and wouldn't take my next
paycheck.
Thanks
Robert Miller
Robert Miller
In article <4nnk94$g...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> dc...@ix.netcom.com(D.C.I. ) writes:
>Newsgroups: alt.society.sovereign,ca.politics,us.legal,misc.legal
>prejudice UCC 1-207
>In <stargazr.3...@mindspring.com> star...@mindspring.com
>(Robert Miller) writes:
>>
>>In article <4nlja3$f...@netaxs.com> eva...@netaxs.com@netaxs.com
>(Dan Evans) writes:
>>>Newsgroups: alt.society.sovereign,ca.politics,us.legal,misc.legal
>>>Subject: Re: signing Calif. Driver's License without prejudice UCC
>1-207
>>Why is driving a car do much different than a horse and buggy
>
> CLIPPED
> There is something a little different,
> a horse can not travel 105 feet per
> second . . .
> DCI
A car does not have a mind of it's own. It won't jump or panic if somebody
blows there horn. It won run willy nilly down a crowded street. Some people
I've met say that you couldn't get them in a horse buggy today because they
are so dangerous. The own a large stable in Clayton Georgia so I must take
them at thier word.
Would Atlanta be safer during the Olympics if everybody rode a horse or horse
and wagon or buggy?
It seems like the safety issue is very much overblown if people started to
drive cars because they were safer.
Robert Miller
William H. Hinkle
>And what about the "National State of Emergency" our country has been in
>for over 60 years that has our Constitution suspended.
>
>Have you read the Emergency and War Powers Act?
>
>"We the People" are declaired the enemy as if there were an invasion
or
>insurrection. We have no Constitutional rights because we do not have
a
>Constitution. The Supreme Court has no power to act on this as long
as we
>remain in a State of Emergency.
>
[snip]
>The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus has been suspended. The
>Govenment may confiscate a persons property as booty as if he were at
War
>with the U.S. Govenment.
>In Schools all across America we learn of the Constitution but not
that it has
>been Suspended since the great depression.
>
I think you'll need to expand this quite a bit to have a sellable
outline for your novel; we need a better feel for the plot, and at
least a hint of character development.
Curt Howland
|> star...@mindspring.com (Robert Miller) writes:
|> >Actualy it is a simple violation of a basic U.S. Constitutional Right "
|> >the freedom to travel". A private citizen is not required to have a
|> >licience to travel on public roads and streets.
eva...@netaxs.com@netaxs.com (Dan Evans) writes:
|> A private citizen is not required to have a license to travel, but
|> is required to have a license to drive.
Bravo.
The greatest danger in having a "constitutional
convention" at this stage of the United States is
the lack of comprehention in general of the
difference between "privilige" and "right". What
would come out of any convention, written by people
who have never had to fight for their rights, would
be a disaster.
---
Curt Howland how...@Priss.com
"Laws do not persuade just because they threaten."
-Seneca, 65 AD
Bruce Hayden
Robert Miller wrote:
> >>Under the UCC, signing a document "without prejudice" or just "wp"
> >>establishes that your signature is for identification purposes only
> >>and all your natural rights are reserved (not waived by any contract).
I am trying to reconcile this (without any sucess) with the official
comments to 1-207. Seems to me to be somewhat wishful thinking.
> Can a bank refuse to except my paychecks if I sign them "Without Prejudice
> UCC 1-207? Do I have any recourse if they do besides go to my own bank?
> The reason I ask is one bank had never heard of it and wouldn't take my next
> paycheck.
They can probably refuse to accept your paycheck for any number of reasons.
One of these is that they don't accept them from non-depositors.
I don't blame them. One of the things that you promise when you endorse
a check is to pay it if a party down the line doesn't. So, from the bank's
point of view, you may be saying that you want money, know that there is
something wrong with the check, and won't take responsibility for it.
After all, the bank is probably asking Why would anyone put that on the
check if they weren't trying to pull a fast one?
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The preceding was not a legal opinion, and is not my employer's.
Original portions Copyright 1996 Bruce E. Hayden, All Rights Reserved
My work may be copied in whole or part, with proper attribution,
as long as the copying is not for commercial gain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce E. Hayden bha...@acm.org
Austin, Texas bha...@copatlaw.com
jthom
In <4ni265$k...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, frd...@primenet.com (Don Cline) writes:
>If the Motor Vehicle Code applies to "drivers," and the definition of
>"driver" is one who "drives for hire," then the Motor Vehicle Code
>does not cover a vehicle operator who drives for pleasure.
OK, this is the third time you've alleged that "driver" only means drivers
for hire. Prove it.
At least in NY, Driver means:
Every person who operates or drives or is in actual physical control of a
vehicle. . . . Vehicle & Traffic Law 113.
If you drive on the road, you are subject to the rules of the road. It is true
that if you drive without a license, many of the "administrative" penalties are
not available. For example, how do you revoke a license that doesn't exist.
But that doesn't mean that it is not illegal.
Don Cline
step...@netcom.com (stephenh) wrote:
I never tried it while I was in California, but I know Arizona will
not accept your signature on the driver's license if there are any
suffixes at all to it. I probably ought to check and see if that is
an Motor Vehicle Code section or just an internal policy.
>Steve
Don Cline
Dr...@aol.com wrote:
>wij...@bisonservices.com (Bill) wrote:
>>In article <4nae3c$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, fredm...@aol.com
>>(FredmFghtr) wrote:
>>>Better yet, get yourself some right to travel papers or an international
>>>motorist qualification. With the IMQ you can still get tickets, but no
>>>points will be assigned and they can never take your "license" away.
>>I may be mistaken as I am going to wing this from memory. I understood
>>that the "international driver license" was valid in all countries that
>>recognize them except for the country of issue. The reason is somewhat
>>obvious. If you live in the issuing country you would be expected to
>>obtain the local license. Possessing a USA international license would be
>>of no value in the USA. Seems you would be right back to the start.
>The IMQ is a fraudulent, fake DL issued by some Patriot in the name of
>the geographic entity British West Indies (which was but is no longer
>a jurisdiction).
Do you have any additional information on that, perhaps more specific?
I'm not challenging your statement, but I've been in the
constitutional movement for almost twenty years and I haven't heard of
that particular scam. I thought he was referring to the International
Driver's License you mentioned in the next paragraph.
>You are confusing it with a real International Drivers License which
>you can get from AAA before you go abroad (and which is not valid in
>the US, if obtained here).
>andy
Don Cline
wij...@bisonservices.com (Bill) wrote:
>In article <4na67i$d...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, frd...@primenet.com (Don
>Cline) wrote:
>>Oh, gad, Dan. I hope you learn something about the law someday.
>>"Breaking" the "law" is a misdemeanor or a felony. It brings the
>>rules of common (criminal) law into play. "Breaching" a provision of
>>an Equity Code is equivalent to violation of contract, and a Supreme
>>Court decision 'way back when I was a teenager forced governments to
>>stop classifying breaches of equity code as misdemeanors.
>>The Motor Vehicle Code is not law; it is code. Your signature on your
>>driver's license signifies your acceptance of that code as governing
>>your conduct when operating a motor vehicle. If that's not a
>>"contract," then it might as well be because you aren't subject to it
>>if you don't agree to it in writing.
>>Don Cline
>How many times can Don Cline post and be wrong. It just boggles the
>mind.
The fact that the number 1 and maybe the number 2 boggles your mind
doesn't say much for your mind.
>Okay Mr. Constitutional Scholar (what university was that again),
>why then do we call the California criminal law the California Penal
>CODE?
Because it is statute, just as is the Motor Vehicle Code. But it is
not "law;" at least not until the court system rules on it. The court
rulings, and the jury instructions that stand the test of the appeals
process, is "law."
The point is, the Penal Code is a criminal code. The Motor Vehicle
Code is a civil code. Both may undergo judicial scrutiny, and both
may result in "law," but everyone is subject to the criminal code and
everyone has the option of claiming rights in their own defense when
prosecuted under the criminal code. Only those who have a motor
vehicle operator's license are subject to the motor vehicle code,
though some activities -- reckless endangerment, DUI, etc., -- are
prosecutable under the Penal Code, but no one has any rights under the
Motor Vehicle Code. Refusing to answer the questions of a traffic
court judge, say under the Fifth Amendment, will get you a court order
to acquire the services of an attorney, and if you still refuse to
answer under the Fifth, with no evidence that your answer would bring
you under the Penal Code, will get you a citation for contempt of
court.
Now, I agree that the above rules are not always followed; one might
even say 'rarely' followed, but to that extent the court system is
corrupt and liberty is lost. My whole point is that sustained combat
in defense of one's rights has a chance of prevailing under the Penal
Code; it has no chance under the Motor Vehicle Code unless the offense
is a criminal offense.
Another point is government, and in particularly the judicial branch
of government, DEARLY wants the defendant subject to the rules of
equity even when charged with a criminal offense; it makes it so much
easier to control and limit his defense and his strategy.
I have been in court a number of times dealing with traffic cases as a
witness, and once or twice as assistance for a student or other
individual who received a traffic ticket for something the defendant
hasn't done. The difference between traffic court and criminal court
is remarkable. In criminal court the prosecution has to PROVE the
case against the defendant, and any benefit of the doubt goes to the
defendant. In traffic court it is just exactly the other way around:
The prosecution doesn't have to PROVE anything (all it has to do is
assert it) and if the defendant wants to be acquitted he has to PROVE
with positive, affirmative, evidence he didn't do that which is
asserted. Of course, the cop in a traffic case is assumed to be an
expert witness, though he usually isn't much of an expert.
>Yup, that is what it is called. You know what the Penal Code
>covers? Robbery, rape, murder, burglary, arson, drugs and a whole bunch
>of neat criminal type stuff. Are you stating that the California Penal
>CODE is not the law, it is just a code? That is what you said, isn't it?
See above.
>I guess it is impossible for you to learn.
You should stop "guessing" so much, and especially stop asserting your
"guesses" as fact.
>California law divides
>CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS into three categories: infractions, misdemeanors and
>felonies. All three are violations of the LAW but with varying
>penalties. The vehicle code contains infractions, misdemeanors and felony
>offenses. Only an idiot would think the california vehicle code is any
>less "the law" than the penal code.
Oh, it is just as much "the law" as the penal code. It's just that it
conveys no jurisdiction over you unless you have a driver's license.
Thus it is a civil code, rather than a criminal code.
And thus it should have no provisions for penalties involving fines or
incarceration. This is how government subverts the law to its own
purposes. (Although it often doesn't make a whole lot of difference:
Everything in the MVC relating to misdemeanors and felonies involving
driving are repeated in more general terms under the PC provisions
relating [mostly] to reckless endangerment. So if you do those things
without ever having had a driver's license, you'll be prosecuted under
the PC instead of under the MVC -- or you will be prosecuted under
both as a shotgun approach.)
[P.S. I apologize for my lack of clarity above when I said the MVC
was "code," not "law." I should have said the MVC was "civil code,"
not "criminal code", and neither one of them is "law" until tested
under the appeal process. Yours was a valid challenge to my wording,
though you could have done so without exercising your juvenile need to
feel superior.)
Dr...@aol.com
frd...@primenet.com (Don Cline) wrote:
>>The IMQ is a fraudulent, fake DL issued by some Patriot in the name of
>>the geographic entity British West Indies (which was but is no longer
>>a jurisdiction).
>Do you have any additional information on that, perhaps more specific?
>I'm not challenging your statement, but I've been in the
>constitutional movement for almost twenty years and I haven't heard of
>that particular scam. I thought he was referring to the International
>Driver's License you mentioned in the next paragraph.
>>You are confusing it with a real International Drivers License which
>>you can get from AAA before you go abroad (and which is not valid in
>>the US, if obtained here).
Somewhere on this group I obtained a web URL for a person offering
'IMQ' from the British West Indies, admitting that no such
jurisdiction exists. (After all, removing oneself from US jurisdiction
to fall into the clutches of the BWI government could be a
disaster?!). Needless to say, such a document is no more valid than
one issued in Ruritania.
I also recall that the AAA International License states clearly that
it must be accompanied by a valid license from the original country of
issue. (I remember because my honeymoon was delayed an hour while I
went back and fetched my wife's!)
andy
Curt Howland
|> star...@mindspring.com (Robert Miller) writes:
|> >The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus has been suspended. The
|> >Govenment may confiscate a persons property as booty as if he were at
|> War
|> >with the U.S. Govenment.
|> >In Schools all across America we learn of the Constitution but not
|> that it has
|> >been Suspended since the great depression.
whha...@ix.netcom.com(William H. Hinkle ) writes:
|> I think you'll need to expand this quite a bit to have a sellable
|> outline for your novel; we need a better feel for the plot, and at
|> least a hint of character development.
We are living in a DICTATORSHIP -- the Constitution was suspended
over 60 years ago. If you don't believe it, read this report.
This report is not based on opinion, but the fact of written law.
The Report itself starts at about line # 370 of this file.
"...without the knowledge contained in this report, how long to
you think the blindness of the American people to this situation
would have continued, and with it, the abolishment of the
Constitution?"
This is an ascii transcription of _War and Emergency Powers_.
It includes the report, but not the exhibits. If you want to
verify the passages cited against the exhibits, buy the book.
The editor states that the Book is NOT copyrighted, and encourages
distribution (see within page 1, below).
Formatting:
My comments are in [BRACKETS].
Paper page-breaks are represented by a row of 70 hyphen characters.
"Wrapping" is NOT maintained: I let it wrap <= column 70.
/I/ italics /i/
/B/ bold /b/
/U/ underline /u/
/BI/ combinations /bi/
This version of this file will be WEP-TXT.TXT within WEP-TXT.ZIP on
The Conservative BBS - (713) 579-8161.
You are encouraged to convert this to various word processor and
printer-output files and distribute them as widely as possible.
Please send only errors and corrections, noted against
the printed book, to har...@xoanon.com.
Send content comments to the authors.
--Harold Melton, 10/08/94
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[COVER] [COVER GRAPHIC SHOWS THE CONSTITUTION TORN TO PIECES]
WAR AND
EMERGENCY POWERS
A SPECIAL REPORT
ON THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY
IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[INSIDE PAGE]
THIS REPORT IS DEDICATED
TO ALL OF THE MEN AND WOMEN
WHO HAVE FOUGHT TO PRESERVE
OUR AMERICAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
AND TO THOSE WHO CONTINUE THE FIGHT TODAY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[PAGE 1]
WAR AND EMERGENCY POWERS
RESEARCHED AND WRITTEN BY:
Gene Schroder
Alvin Jenkins
Jerry Russell
Ed Petrowsky
Russell Grieder
Darrell Schroder
Walter Marston
Lynn Bitner
Billy Schroder
Van Stafford
Fred Peters
Tinker Spain
Paul Baily
AMERICAN AGRICULTURE MOVEMENT
Box 130
Campo, Colo 81029
"Study the Constitution. Let it be preached from the pulpit,
proclaimed in legislatures, and enforced in courts of justice."
--Abraham Lincoln
"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that
cannot be replaced or restrained by human laws; rights derived from
the Great Legislator of the Universe." --John Adams
"I believe there are more instances of abridgement of freedom of the
people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by
violent and sudden usurpations..." --James Madison
You may obtain a copy of this report for $ 20.00
A two-hour video of the same report is $ 25.00
Prices include Shipping and Handling.
Send check or money order to:
WAR AND EMERGENCY POWERS
4656 Alta Vista
Dallas, Texas 75229
(ORDER FORMS ON LAST PAGE)
OR CALL
214-750-5932
A word from the Editor:
We must give a special thanks to the men who have spent years of their
lives bringing this information to the public; and we must not forget
the women who are not always in the foreground but without whose
undying support and endurance this effort would be impossible. These
men and women are true Patriots; they not only need your support but
deserve it. Let us remember that the word Patriot as defined by
Webster's Dictionary as "fellow countryman; a person who loves and
loyally or zealously supports his own country." Not everyone can
afford to give the long hours of those on the front lines; many others
fear their government. Isn't it an outrage that the actions of our own
government leaders causes many to not trust them? Where have we gone?
How much is your freedom worth? If you cannot give your time, please
give your support. The American Agriculture Movement and many other
organizations need your help to continue their efforts to bring about
the restoration of this Nation. A few dollars a month, in the form of
purchasing information to pass on to others, is not too much to ask.
Wouldn't it be a tragedy to loose their efforts, from which we will
all gain so much, because they were twenty dollars short, and we
failed to do our part? Please, become involved; this movement is too
important not to do so. We need this Report in the hands of all
Americans, so we are not going to copyright it; therefore, permission
is hereby granted to reproduce this Report in its entirety. We do ask,
however, that you lend your support, if possible, by purchasing an
original Report to make copies from so that quality will be
maintained. Thank You. --Paul Bailey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[REVERSE OF PAGE 1] [THE LIST OF EXHIBITS IS INCLUDED FOR REFERENCE]
CONTENTS
2 INTRODUCTION
5 REPORT
34 CONCLUSION
38 LETTERS
39 Letter to the President
40 Letter to Representatives
41 Letter to Senators
42 EXHIBITS [NOT INCLUDED IN THIS TRANSCRIPTION]
43 1 - Emergency Power Statutes
44 2 - National Emergency Hearings
45 3 - United States Code
46 4 - National Emergency Hearings
47 5 - Public Papers of Herbert Hoover
48 6 - Statutes of the United States
49 7 - United States Code
50 8 - Constitutional Development By: Swisher
51 9 - Constitutional Development By: Swisher
52 10 - Foreword from 1973 Senate Report 93-549
53 11 - Introduction to 1973 Senate Report 93-549
54 12 - United States Constitution
55 13 - United States Constitution
56 14 - 1973 Senate Report 93-549
57 15 - Title 12 U.S.C.
58 16 - F.D.R. Papers
59 17 - 48 Stat. 1
60 18 - Trading With the Enemy Act
61 19 - Trading With the Enemy Act
62 20 - 1973 Senate Report 93-549
63 21 - STOEHR v. WALLACE, 1921
64 22 - Memorandum of American Cases
65 23 - Trading With the Enemy Act
66 24 - Trading With the Enemy Act
67 25 - Trading With the Enemy Act
68 26 - Trading With the Enemy Act
69 27 - Trading With the Enemy Act
70 28 - H.J.R. - 192, Contracts Payable in Gold, 1933
71 29 - 1917, War Powers Under the Constitution
72 30 - Public Papers of Herbert Hoover
73 31 - Public Papers of Herbert Hoover
74 32 - Proclamations 2038 and 2039
75 33 - Proclamation 2039
76 33a - Proclamations 2039 and 2040
77 34 - F.D.R. Papers
78 35 - 48 Stat. 1
79 36 - F.D.R. Papers
80 37 - 48 Stat. 1
81 38 - Congressional Record March 9, 1933
82 39 - Congressional Record March 9, 1933
83 40 - Congressional Record March 9, 1933
84 41 - 48 Stat. 1
85 42 - F.D.R. Papers
86 42a - Black's Law
87 43 - Agricultural Adjustment Act
88 44 - H.J.R. - 192
89 45 - F.D.R. Papers
90 46 - Agricultural Adjustment Act
91 47 - Agricultural Adjustment Act
92 48 - Senate Report 93-549
93 49 - Senate Report 93-549
94 50 - Senate Report 93-549
95 51 - Senate Report 93-549
96 52 - Emergency Farm Mortgage Act of 1933
97 53 - Agricultural Adjustment Act
98 54 - Agricultural Adjustment Act
99 55 - Senate Report 93-549
100 56 - Senate Report 93-549
101 57 - Senate Report 93-549
102 58 - Senate Report 93-549
103 59 - United States v. Butler
104 60 - United States v. Butler
105 61 - United States v. Butler
106 62 - Constitutional Sources of the Laws of War
107 63 - Constitutional Sources of the Laws of War
108 64 - Senate Report 93-549
109 65 - Bouvier's Law
110 66 - The Law of Civil Government...
111 67 - Trading With the Enemy Act, Sec. 17
112 67a - 73rd Congress Sess. II, 1934
113 67b - Letter of Submittal
114 68 - Executive Order 11677
115 69 - Executive Order 11677
116 70 - Public Law 94-412
117 71 - Public Law 94-412
118 72 - Declaration of Rights
119 APPENDIX
120 Public Papers of Herbert Hoover
128 Statutes at Large Part I
137 Statutes at Large Part II
148 Statutes at Large, 1976 Part I
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[PAGE 2]
/BU/ INTRODUCTION /bu/
------------------------
To be able to call oneself "American" has long been a source of pride
for those fortunate enough to life in this great land. The word
"America" had always been synonymous with the strength in the defense
of our highest ideals of liberty, justice, and opportunity, not only
for ourselves, but for those throughout the world less fortunate than
we.
America's greatest strength has always been her people, individuals
laying their differences aside to work in partnership to achieve
common goals. In our greatest moments, it has been our willingness to
join together and work as long and as hard as it takes to get the job
done, regardless of the cost, and that has been the lifeblood of our
great land.
>From America's inception, we have been a nation of innovators
unfettered by hidebound convention, a safe harbor for captains
unafraid to boldly chart a new course through untried waters. This
courage to dare greatly to achieve great things has made our nation
strong and proud, a leader of men and of nations from the very first
days of her birth. And since the days of her birth, millions of men
and women whose young hearts yearn for freedom and the opportunity to
make a better life for themselves and their families have journeyed,
often enduring terrible hardship, to our shores to add their skills
and their dreams to the great storehouse of hope known as America.
The Pilgrims, the Founding Fathers, the Pioneers - the brave men and
women who have fought and endured to the end in wars both civil and
international - this history of heroism and dedication in defense of
ideals both personal and national has long been a treasured legacy of
bravery and determination against all odds which we have handed down
like family heirlooms from generation to generation.
For we are like family, we Americans, often quarrelling among
ourselves but banding together in times of adversity to support one
another and fight side by side against a common foe threatening our
way of life. The bold and brash, brave young land has long given its
best and brightest to lead our country to its lofty position in the
world as a bastion of freedom and a beacon of hope for all the peoples
of the earth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[PAGE 3]
For many, the dreams they had for America were dreams they never lived
to see fulfilled, but it mattered not to them, for their vision for
this nation was meant to last longer and loom larger than a mere
mortal lifespan. Our national vision of integrity and responsibility,
of concerns for one's fellow man, the flame inside that demands of us
that we shall not rest until there is peace and justice for all --
these are the fundamental stones which form the strong foundation of
our national purpose and identity.
And on this foundation rests, not only the hopes of those blessed to
live in this great land, but the hopes of millions throughout the
world who believe in, and strive for, a better way of life for
themselves and their children. For hundreds of years, the knowledge
that America was there -- proud, generous, steadfast, courageous --
willing to be able to enter the fray whenever human rights were
threatened or denied, has given many who may never see her shores the
will to endure despite the the pain, to continue trying against sometimes
insurmountable odds.
Yet without vigilance and constant tender care, even the strongest
foundation shows the effects of stress and erosion. Even the most
imposing edifice can eventually crumble and fall. So it is with
nations, and with a nation's spirit.
We have seen in this second half of the twentieth century great
advances in technology which have impacted every aspect of modern
life. Ironically, though we are living in the "age of communication,"
it often seems as if we have less time now to talk or listen. For
most, modern conveniences haven't gotten them off the treadmill; they
have only made the treadmill go faster.
Quietly, yet rapidly, the small town values of community and common
purpose are vanishing. Instead of strength in numbers, we as a nation
are increasingly being split into smaller and smaller competing
factions, with the cry of "every man for himself" ringing through
the land. It seems the phrase of "divide and conquer" has taken the
place of "One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice
for all." Americans are retreating behind locked doors in their
individual homes, afraid to enjoy the sunset for fear of the darkness
it brings.
[the book says "truth and justice for all."]
When and here did it all begin to crumble? How and why has America,
which as once a nation whose strength united was so much more than
they sum of it total parts, begin to break apart into bitterly
opposing special interest groups? What will this frightening pattern
of disintegration mean to America and those who live within her
shores? Let it be remembered, and remembered well, the words of the
Holy Bible: "a house divided against itself cannot stand." And let us
not flinch from facing the truth that we have become a nation
desperately divided.
With the long legacy of pride, determination, and strength in unity,
how has it now come to this, that we are fighting ourselves? Finally,
and most vitally important of all, what can we do to turn the tide
before the values and opportunities which others before us have fought
and died to preserve are washed away in the floods to come?
What you are about to see is the result of years of years of
painstaking research and menticulous research on the part of dedicated
Americans gravely concerned for this nation's future. Please listen
closely and give your undivided attention to this presentation, for
our future as individuals and free citizens of this mighty land
depends upon it.
We are not here to showcase personalities -- the speakers could be any
of you here today. We are, first and last, concerned Americans, like
yourselves, taking our stand in defense of the nation we love. Much
effort has been expended, and great hardships endured, by the American
Agricultural Movement and many other organizations and individuals to
bring this information to the public forum.
There is a wealth of information about many of the problems we face as
a nation today, written from a variety of viewpoints. But as with a
deadly illness, there is usually a point of origin, from which the
threat was first given life. So it is with the threat we as Americans
face today -- an illness which could prove fatal if we do not act
quickly and in concert to cure the body politic before it dies from
the disease within.
Almost all the problems we are facing today can be traced back to a
single point of origin, in time of national trouble and despair. It
was at this point, when our nation struggled for its survival, that
the Constitution of the United States was effectively cancelled.
/B/ We are in a State of Emergency! /b/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[PAGE 5]
/B/ R E P O R T /b/
We are going to begin with a series of documents which are
representative (Exhibits 1 through 7), of the documents contained in
this report. We will be quoting from in many cases, reports, Senate
and Congressional reports, hearings before National Emergency
Committees, Presidential Papers, Statutes at Large, and the United
States Code.
Exhibit 8 is taken from a book written by Swisher called
Constitutional Development. 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 if 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 operations were still in operation."
What is this man talking about when he speaks of "war statutes still
in effect and emergency operations still in operation"?
In 1933 (Exhibit 9), 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 declared 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 United States, as a restraining
influence, in keeping the federal government within the carefully
prescribed channels of power, is moribund, if not dead. We are
witnessing its death-agonies, for when this bill becomes law, if
unhappily it becomes a law, there is no longer any workable
Constitution to keep Congress within the limits of its
Constitutional powers."
What is Congressman Beck taking 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[PAGE 6]
The cause and effect of the doctrine of emergency is the subject of
this report.
In 1973, in Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 10), 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 9 just before this. What did it say? It says
that if a national emergency is declared, there is no Constitution.
Now, let us return to Exhibit 10. 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 [10]:
"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."
and this situation has continued uninterrupted since March the 9th of
1933.
In the introduction the Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 11):
"A majority of people of the United States have spent 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 (Exhibit 12) 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 of Invasion, the public Safety
may require it."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[PAGE 7]
Habeas Corpus -- the Great Writ of Liberty. 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 operate its
arbitrary prerogative powers 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 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 upon 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 powers 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
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, in Exhibit 13, it says,
"...except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the
Militia, when in actual service in times 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 (Exhibit 14), 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[PAGE 8]
called the State of Siege. In Great Britain, it's called the Defense
of the Realm Acts. In Germany, in which Hitler became dictator, it was
simply called Article 48. In the United States, it's 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 that we should be able
to go to the federal code known as the USC or the United Stated Code,
and find that statute, that law, in existence. And if we went to the
library today and picked up a copy of 12 USC and went to section 95
(b) (Exhibit 15), 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 I, Sec. 1, 48
Stat 1.)"
[Congress just made the President a dictator.
The word "hereafter" is pivotal. --hm ]
Now, what does this mean? It means that everything that the President
or the Secretary of the Treasury has done since March the 4th of 1933,
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 10, 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
95 (b) is the current law. This is the law that exists over this
United States right this moment, today 1994.
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 9th 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 (Exhibit 16):
"I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the
measures that a stricken nation in the midst of s 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 this crisis -- broad Executive power to wage
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 of 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[PAGE 9]
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 other purposes.
In the enabling portion of the Act (Exhibit 17), it states:
/I/ "Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled, /i/ 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 know also
that, if you are in dire danger, in danger of losing your life, 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 would 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 (Exhibit 17), 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 Subsection (b) of Section 5 of the Act of
October 6th, 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 15) today in Title
12, USC 95 (b). The language in Title 12, USC 95 (b) 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 which has existed, uninterrupted, since 1933, /I/ for over
sixty years. /i/
As you may remember, the authority to do this is conferred by
Subsection (b) of Section 5
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[PAGE 10]
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 (Exhibit 18), we see 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 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 these 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 that 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 5 (b) of the same Act (Exhibit 19), states:
"That the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under
such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of
license 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 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.
In section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933 (Exhibit 17),
"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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[PAGE 11]
it's been amended. The amended version of Section 5 (b) reads
(emphasis is ours [the authors]):
"During a time of war or during any other period of /B/ national
emergency declared by the President, /b/ The President may,
through /B/ any agency that he may designate, /b/ or otherwise,
investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and
regulations as he may prescribe, by means of license or otherwise,
any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between
or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President
and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarkings of gold or silver
coin or bullion or currency, by any person within the United
States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
What just happened? 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. Comparing Exhibit 17 with Exhibit
19, 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.
To summarize this critical point: On October the 6th of 1917, at the
beginning of America's involvement in World War I, 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 [1917] 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, (Exhibit 17), 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
purpose of all commercial, monetary
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[PAGE 12]
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 (Exhibit
17):
"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 license or otherwise,
any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between
or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President
and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarkings of gold or silver
coin or bullion or currency, by any person within the United
States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
What can the President not do to We, the People, under this section?
He can do anything he wants to. It's purely at his discretion, and he
can use any agency or any license that he desires to do it. This is
called a constitutional dictatorship.
In Senate Document 93-549 (Exhibit 20), Congress declared that serious
emergency exists, at:
"48 Stat. 1 The exclusion of domestic transactions, formerly
found in the Act [1917], was deleted from Sect. 5 (b) at this
time." [1933]
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 21), 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 capture on land and water'
Const. Art I, 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 rules concerning
capture on land and 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" (Exhibit
22), remembering that we are now in the same state as the enemy. In
this memorandum, we read:
/I/ "Every species of intercourse with the enemy is illegal. This
prohibition is not limited to mere commercial intercourse." /i/
This is the case of /I/ The Rapid /i/ (1814).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[PAGE 13]
Additionally,
"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 /I/ persona standi in judicio. /i/"
In other words, they have no personal rights at law in court. This is
the case of /I/ The Julia /i/ (1813).
In the next case, the case of /I/ The Sally /i/ (1814) (Exhibit 23),
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 a citizen; the illegal
traffic stamps it with a hostile character, and attaches to it all
the penal consequences of enemy ownership."
Reading further in the memorandum, again from the case of
/I/ The Rapid: /i/
"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, and
thereby involve his property in the fate of those in whose cause
he embarks."
Again from the memorandum (Exhibit 24):
"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."
>From the case (Exhibit 25) of /I/ The William Bagaley /i/ (1866):
"In general, during war, contracts with, or powers of attorney or
agency from, the enemy executed after the 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 (Exhibit 26), 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 in 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."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[PAGE 14]
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, Exhibit 22, wasn't it? So once
we were declared enemies, all intercourse 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.
[READ THAT AGAIN!] 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 27):
"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
/I/ temporary /i/ 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 terminated 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 when we return to, and
expound upon, it later in this report.
Reading from (Exhibit 28) 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 a 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, (Exhibit 29) United States v. Russell:
"Private property, the Constitution provides, shall not be taken
for public use without just compensation .... "
This is a peacetime clause, isn't it? Further (emphasis is ours),
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[PAGE 15]
"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 public service, or may be seized or
appropriated to public use, or may even be destroyed /B/ without
the consent of the owner.... /b/ "
This quote, and indeed this case, provides a vivid illustration of the
potential power of the government.
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 (Exhibit
30) 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 Board 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 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 a 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 this happen? Reading from the public papers of Herbert
Hoover (Exhibit 31):
"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..."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[PAGE 16]
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 (Exhibit 31),
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 license 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 normal usage of the American language, the standard
accepted meaning of a series of three asterisks after a quotation
means that what follows must also be quoted exactly, doesn't it? If
it's not, that's a fraudulent use of the American language. At that
point where that * * * began, what did the [remainder of] the original
Act of October 6, 1917, say?
Referring back to Exhibit 19, we find that the remainder of Section 5
(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, says:
"(other than credits relating solely to transactions to be
executed wholly within the United 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 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 * * *
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[PAGE 17]
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
their 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 32:
"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 6th, 1933, President Roosevelt issued
Proclamation 2039, which has been included in this report, starting at
the bottom of Exhibit 32. In Exhibit 32, we find the following:
"Whereas there may have been heavy and unwarranted withdrawals of
gold and currency from our banking institutions for the purpose of
hoarding"
Right from 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 myself and my family 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, Exhibit 33. In Exhibit 33, we find the following:
"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 license or otherwise, any transactions in foreign
exchange and the export, hoarding, melting, or earmarkings of gold
or silver coin or bullion or currency, * * *"
Exactly as proposed by the Federal Reserve Board of New York (Exhibit
31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[PAGE 18]
If we return to 48 Statute 1 (Exhibit 17), Title 1, Section 1, we find
that the amended section 5 (b) with it's added phrase:
"by any person within the United States or anyplace 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 (Exhibits 32-33). On March
9th, Roosevelt issued Proclamation 2040. We looked at Proclamation
2039 in Exhibits 32 and 33, and now, in Exhibit 33a, let's see what
Roosevelt is talking about in Proclamation 2040:
"Whereas, on March 6th, 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,
1917, 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 on March 6,
1933, and the regulations and orders issued thereunder are hereby
continued in full force and effect until further proclamation by
the President."
Now we 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[PAGE 19]
about those actions will 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 6th, 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'
confirmations 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 (Exhibit 34):
"That those speculators and insiders were right was plain enough
later on. The 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 public
enemies and placed under military authority.
Going not to another section of 48 Statute 1 (Exhibit 35):
"Whenever in the judgement of the Secretary of the Treasury such
action is necessary to protect the currency system of the United
States, the Secretary of the Treasury, in his discretion, may
require any or all individuals, partnerships, associations and
corporations, to pay and deliver to the Treasurer of the United
States any or all gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates
owned by such individuals, partnerships, associations and
corporations."
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.
>From the Roosevelt Papers (Exhibit 36):
"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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[PAGE 20]
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 bank-notes which could be based on
any sound assets owned by the 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 (Exhibit 37):
"Upon 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 /B/ Treasurer /b/ of the United States, (a) any direct
obligation of the United States..." What 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 (Exhibit 38), 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 [single] copy of
the bill was passed around for approximately 40 minutes.
Congressman McFadden made the comment,
"Mr. Speaker, I regret that the membership of the House has had no
opportunity to consider or even read this bill. The first
opportunity I had to know what this legislation is, was when it
was read from the clerk's desk. It is an important banking bill.
It is a DICTATORSHIP over finance in the United States. [emphasis
mine] 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."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[PAGE 21]
Congressman McFadden later says,
"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 whose
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.
[Generally speaking, they (a) made us all wartime enemies (under the
1933 revision of the 1917 enemy trading act); (b) stole our gold and
shipped it out of the country (under international war-prize laws);
and (c) appropriated us, all our mortgages, property, etc, to use as
backing for our money. Pssst! Get out of debt, people! ]
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 (Exhibit 39):
"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 in exchange for bank notes. Is that not correct?"
Who is collateral? We are -- we are chattel, aren't we? We have no
rights. Our rights were suspended along with the Constitution. We
became chattel property to the corporate government, our transactions
and obligations the collateral for the issuance of Federal Reserve
bank notes.
Congressman Patman, speaking from the Congressional Record (Exhibit
40):
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[PAGE 22]
"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
of all the homes and other property of all the people of the
Nation."
It is not no wonder that credit became so available after the
Depression. It was needed to back our monetary system. Our debts, our
obligations, our jobs -- we were now slaves for the system.
>From Statutes at Large, in the Congressional Record (Exhibit 41):
"When required to do so by the Secretary of the Treasury, each
Federal Reserve agent shall act as an agent of the Treasurer of
the United States or the Comptroller of the currency, or both, for
the performance of any functions which the Treasurer or the
Comptroller may be called upon to perform in carrying out the
provisions of this paragraph."
The Federal Reserve was taken over by the Treasury. The Treasury holds
the assets. We are the collateral -- ourselves and our property.
To summarize briefly: On March 9, 1933 the American people in all
their domestic, daily, and commercial transactions became the same as
the enemy. The President of the United States, through licenses or any
other form, was given the power to regulate and control the actions of
enemies. He made WE, the People, chattel property; he seized our gold,
our property and our rights; and he suspended the Constitution. 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. Pretty broad,
sweeping approval to be automatic, wouldn't you agree?
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."
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 USCA 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."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[PAGE 23]
Take special note of the last sentence in this definition, especially
the phrase, "present law." The fact that banks are under the
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 100 days of FDR saw the
nationalization of the United States, its people and its assets. What
was Bill Clinton talking about during his campaign and early
presidency? His first 100 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 the civil law, no
ability to sustain a persona standi in judicio."
They have no personal rights at law. Therefore, we should expect that
we would see in the statute 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)(Exhibit 44):
"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 (Exhibit 45):
"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 the 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 banking crisis."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[PAGE 24]
What were the "broad powers"? That was the /B/ WAR POWERS, /b/ 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 governmental take-over of their
livelihoods.
Reading from the Agricultural Adjustment Act, May the 12th,
Declaration of Emergency (Exhibit 46):
"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 the 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 (Exhibit 24):
"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 cannot be kept, in sufficient degree, on
the side of the government, statutes, laws and bills can continue to
be passed. The Constitution has no meaning. The Constitution is
suspended. It has been for over 60 years. We are not under law. Law
had been abolished.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[PAGE 25]
We are under a system of public policy, (War Powers).
So when you go into that courtroom with the Constitution and the
common law in your hand, what does that judge tell you? He tells you
that you have no /I/ persona standi in judicio. /i/ You have no
personal standing at law. He tells you not to bother bringing that
Constitution into his court, because it is not a Constitutional court,
but an executive tribunal operating under a totally different
jurisdiction.
>From Section 93-549 (Exhibit 48)(emphasis is ours):
"Under this procedure we retain Government by law -- special,
temporary law, but law nonetheless. The public may know the extent
and the limitations of the powers that can be asserted, /B/ and
the persons affected may be informed by the statute of their
rights and duties. /b/ "
If you have any rights, the only reason you have them is because they
have been statutorily declared, and your duties well spelled out, and
if you violate the orders of those statutes, you will be charged, not
with a crime, but with an offense.
Again from 93-549, from the words of Mr. Katzenbach (Exhibit 49):
"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 are saying, then, is that if Congress doesn't act to
standardize, restrict, or eliminate the emergency powers, that no
one else is likely to get a standing in court to contest."
No persona standi in judicio - no personal standing in the courts.
Continuing with Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 50):
"The interesting aspect of the legislation lies in the fact that
it created /I/ a permanent agency designed to eradicate an
emergency condition in the sphere of agriculture. /i/ "
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."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[PAGE 26]
That quote takes on a different meaning in the light of what we have
seen so far.
In Exhibit 51, 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 of 1933 (Exhibit 52):
"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
power 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 (Exhibit 53) 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[PAGE 27]
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 (Exhibit 54):
"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 in 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 was in no
position to take it back.
In Senate Report 93-549, we find the following statement from
Congress (Exhibit 55):
"Furthermore, it would be a 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 been terminated for over 60 years.
Now, there's no indication that a president, from Bill Clinton on,
might not eventually sign the termination proclamation, but 60 years
of experience would lead one to doubt that day will ever come by
itself. But the question to ask now it 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 even know that it had been done? And, without the
knowledge contained in this report, how long to you think the
blindness of the American people to this situation would have
continued, and with it, the abolishment of the Constitution? But we
are not quite as in the dark as we were, are we?
In Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 56), we find the following statement
from Senator Church:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[PAGE 28]
"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 (Exhibit 57):
"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 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 (Exhibit 58) written on May 21,
1973, by the Attorney General of the United States regarding studies
undertaken by the Justice Department on the question of termination of
the standing national emergency:
"As a consequence, a `national emergency' is now a practical
necessity in order to carry out what has become the regular and
normal method of governmental actions. What were intended by
Congress as delegations of power to be used in only 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 /I/ United States v. Butler /i/ (Supreme Court, 1935)
(Exhibit 59):
"A tax, in the general understanding and in the strict
Constitutional sense, is an extraction 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 /U/ only /u/ be an
extraction 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 from /I/ United States v. Butler /i/ Exhibit 60):
"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. They are
not valid contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[PAGE 29]
Again from /I/ United States v. Butler /i/ (Exhibit 61):
"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 United States converted in to a central government exercising
uncontrolled police power throughout the union superseding 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.
>From the 65th Congress, 1st Session Doc. 87, under the section
entitled Constitutional Sources of Laws at War, Page 7, Clause II, we
find (Exhibit 62):
"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 of the common law.
The courts were deprived of the Constitution. They were deprived of
the common law. There are now courts of prize over the enemies, and we
have no /I/ persona standi in judicio. /i/ We have no personal
standing under the law.
Also, from the 65th Congress, under the section entitled
Constitutional Sources of Law at War, we find (Exhibit 64):
"When the sovereign authority shall choose to bring it into
operation, the judicial department must give effect to its will.
But until that shall be expressed, no power of condemnation can
exist in the court."
>From Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 64):
"Just how effective a limitation on crisis action this makes 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 amendment will be
called upon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[PAGE 30]
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 of Exhibit 64:
"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 in all cases whatsoever.
Finally, let us look briefly at the courts, specifically with regard
to the question of "booty." The following definition of the term
"prize" is found in Bouvier's Law Dictionary (Exhibit 65):
"Goods taken on land from a public enemy are called booty; and the
distinction between a prize and a booty consists of 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 reinterate, 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. 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.
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.
>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
(Exhibit 66), comes the following quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[PAGE 31]
"4. Should the President desire to use the services of the Federal
courts of the United States in promoting this purpose or military
undertaking, since the 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 statutory authority.
In the same section (Exhibit 66), 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 property captured
on land in the absence of Congressional action."
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 (Exhibit 67):
"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
/U/ original, /u/ unamended, 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 and abolishing
common law. This
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[PAGE 32]
Act, known as the Federal Rules of 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 (Exhibits 67(a) and (b)).
But on March the 9th of 1933, the American people were declared to be
the public enemy under the /U/ amended /u/ version of the Trading With
the Enemy Act. What jurisdiction were We, the People, then placed
under? We were now [under] the booty jurisdiction given to the
district courts by Congress. It was no longer necessary, or of any
value at all, to bring the Constitution of the United States with us
upon entering a courtroom, for that court was no longer a court of
common law, but a tribunal under booty jurisdiction. Take a look at
the American flag in most courtrooms. The gold fringe around our flag
designates Admiralty jurisdiction.
Executive Order No. 11677 issued by President Richard M. Nixon, August
1, 1972 (Exhibit 68) 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 USC 95a)..."
Section 5 (b) certainly seem to be an oft-cited support for
Presidential authority, doesn't it? Surely the reason for this can be
found by referring back to Exhibit 49, the words of Senator Katzenbach
in Senate Report 93-549:
"My recollection is that almost every executive order ever issued
straddles on several grounds, but 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 American, is what type of acts can "almost anything" cover? What
has been, and is being, done 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 94-412, September 14, 1976 (Exhibit 70), we find that
Congress had finally finished their exhaustive study on the national
emergencies, and the words of their finding 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[PAGE 33]
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 (Exhibit 71), 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 the actions taken thereunder (1) Section 5 (b) of the Act of
October 6, 1917, as amended (12 USC 95a; 50 USC 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 Rights" (Exhibit 72). 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 trail of causes merely arising within
the body of a country."
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 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 a legal sense until the Constitution itself is re-established. For
our part, however, we believe that, "by their fruits ye shall know
them," and on that authority we rest our case.
---------------------------[END REPORT]------------------------------
[PAGE 34]
/BU/ CONCLUSION /bu/
As you have just witnessed, the United States of America continues to
exist in a governmentally ordained state of national emergency. Under
such a state of emergency, our Constitution has been set aside,
ostensibly for the public good, until the emergency is cancelled.
But, as experience painfully shows, it has not been to the public's
good that our government has used its unrestricted power, unhampered
by the Constitution's restraining force. The governmental edict and
actions over the last six decades have led us to the desperate state
in which we find ourselves today. Besieged on every side, corroding
from within, frightened and in despair, we as a nation are being torn
asunder.
There IS a national emergency today - one that is of life and death
proportions - but it is NOT the emergency used by our government to
continue its abuse of power. It IS this very abuse, this unbridled
rape of the American spirit, that is the crux of the emergency that we
are in today. But this true emergency cannot be cured by setting aside
the Constitution; no, it can only be controlled by returning to the
laws of God and Country which have been stolen from us by those in
whom we placed our trust to protect the national interest.
We are a nation whose government is based upon those immortal words,
"a government of the people, by the people, for the people." One has
only to walk down the highways and byways of this great land to know
all too well that this is not a government of the people or for the
people. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions taken over
the past decades have resulted in an unparalleled decline of American
economic and political power, and a weakening of American values and
spirit.
This is NOT a crisis in which taking up arms is the answer. No, this
is a situation in which we firmly believe that a pen will be mightier
than they sword. That a state of emergency exists cannot be disputed.
That the emergency is one which should concern every American alive
cannot be denied. That we must stand together, laying aside our
individual differences, to fight the common foe, is of vital
importance, for the time to act is now. But this is not a battle of
swords, but of knowledge, for only when the deception is exposed to
the light of day can the healing process begin.
Truth stands tall in the light of day, and it is the truth be bring to
you today. Let it be known and understood that it is our intention to
make this information available to every concerned American who
desires to know the true State of the Union. This is an undertaking of
immense proportions, but we have dedicated ourselves to bringing this
information to the light of day, and with the help of "We, the
People," we will be successful in our efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[PAGE 35]
Every American who is thankful for the opportunity to call themselves
American must also accept the responsibility that comes with that
title. We, the People have not only a right, but a responsibility to
each other and to those who have gone before us to learn what our
government is doing, and to judge whether actions taken will benefit
the people who bear the costs. We have been in the dark long enough,
content to rest on our past glories and let the government take its
course. In a way, we have been like children, trusting in our parents
to act in our best interest. But as we have too frequently seen in the
nightly news, not all parents have their children's best interest at
heart.
The time has come for us to take off our blinders and accept reality,
for the time of national reckoning has arrived. The majority of our
elected and appointed officials are no more responsible for the
current state of affairs than are we. The strings are being
manipulated at far higher levels than the positions most officials
occupy. They are working with little knowledge or authority, trying to
control problems far bigger then even they realize. Their programs and
actions may seek to cure the symptoms, but the time has now come to
attack the disease. They are no more guilty than are we, nor will they
be any more protected when the nation collapses on us all.
If we blame them for this national emergency, we must also truly
blame ourselves, for it is "We, The People" to whom this nation was
given and whose duty it was to keep a watchful eye on those who direct
the sails of the ship of state. We have, however, fallen asleep, and
while we were dreaming the American dream, a band of pirates stole the
Constitution and put our people into slavery.
And since that terrible day when our Constitution was cast aside, not
one President or Congress, nor one Supreme Court justice has been able
or willing to return it to its rightful owners. Given the current state
of the union, there is no reason to expect this situation to change -
unless we ourselves cause it to do so.
Let us put the childish emotions of pity and self-deception away,
stand up, stand together and fight back. Now is the time to stop
dreaming, and start the long work before us. Now is the time to turn
back to the principles and ideals on which this nation was founded,
the strong foundation from which our national identity springs.
When does tolerance become anarchy? When does protection become
slavery? When is enough enough? NOW is when, here and now.
Now is the time to return to the laws set forth by God, and throw off
these chains of ignorance and bondage which grasp our nation to the
point of death. Let us return to the source, the standard of
excellence set for us long ago. Our message to the Congress and all
elected and appointed officials must be, "Let my people go!", for we
are all laboring under a system which will eventually crush us,
regardless of our religion, sex, or the color of our skin.
We must let those at all levels of governmental authority know that we
have learned of this deception which lies at the core of our national
malaise. We must tell them in no uncertain terms that we will tolerate
this great lie no longer, and we must put them on notice that we
expect them to resign if they have not the courage and the resolve to
help this nation in its hour of need.
We have been fools long enough. /B/ Beginning April 1st, 1994, /b/ no
matter how long after that date you see this report, start each and
every week without fail to give a copy of this information to at least
one person you know. We also ask you to write a letter to Congress
telling them to "Let our people go!", or you can use the form letter
you will find enclosed in the report.
We must let our elected officials know that we expect them as servants
of the people to help us re-establish law and order and restore our
national pride. They must repeal Proclamation 2039, 2040, and Title 12
USC 95(a) and (b), thereby cancelling the national emergency, and
re-establish the Constitution of this nation.
Now is the time for excellence of action. We demand it and we will
accept nothing less. This is our country, to protect and defend, no
matter the cost. To do nothing out of fear or apathy is exactly what
those in power are hoping for, for it is ignorance and apathy that
darkness likes the best. We must not be a party to the darkness
enveloping our nation any longer. We must come into the light, and
give our every drop of blood, sweat, and tears to bring our nation
back with us.
We must acknowledge that if we do nothing, if we are not willing to
act now and act boldly, without fear but with faith and a firm
resolve, our freedom to act at all may soon be taken away altogether.
New bills, new laws, are being presented daily which will effective
serve to tighten the chains of bondage already encircling this nation.
My friends, we are not going into slavery -- we are already there.
Make no mistake - those in power are already tightening the chains,
but they are doing so slowly, quietly, and with great caution, for
fear of awakening the slumbering lion which is the voice of the
American people. There is yet still time for us to slip loose the
chains which bind us, and for us to bring about the restoration of
this nation.
If we act, if we make our concerns known and shout out our refusal to
accept the future which has been planned for us by those who hold no
allegiance to this great land of ours, we can yet demand and see come
to pass the day when the state of emergency is cancelled and the
Constitution is restored to her rightful place as the watchdog of those
for whom absolute power corrupts absolutely. If we repent of our
ignorance and our apathy and return to the God-given laws on which
this nation was founded, we may yet be free.
We will continue to hold meetings and offer this information until
everyone in America has had the opportunity to hear it and we have set
our nation free. We will not tolerate less. We are Americans and that
means far more than most of us realize.
If at first it seems you are working alone, do not give up, for as
this information spreads across the land to the great cities and small
towns, you will find yourself in excellent company. You already are as
only one, for behind you stand all the heroes of our history who fought
and died to keep this nation free.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[PAGE 37]
Again, we must stress that we are not asking you to pick up guns; in
fact, we implore you not to, no matter how angry the news of this
deception has made you. Turn your anger into a steely resolve, a
fierce determination not to give up until this battle has been won. We
are not asking you for lots of money; that's their game, the "almighty
dollar." It is the substitution of wealth and possessions for
integrity and honor that helped us get into this true state of
emergency in which we find ourselves now. We are not asking you for
more time than you can give, although we do ask that you give what
time you can to get this information out.
What we ask from you is your commitment to stand with those around
you to help us restore this nation to her rightful place in history,
both that already written, and that yet to be told. Abraham Lincoln
once said, "We the People are the rightful masters of both Congress
and the Courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow
the men who pervert the Constitution." We must stand together now in
this, our national hour of need. As the United States Supreme Court
once said, "It is not the function of our government to keep the
citizens from falling into error; it is the function of the citizens
to keep the government from falling into error."
Each individual, their attitudes and actions, forges their own special
link in the great chain of history. Now is the time to add that
precious inheritance of honor and duty which has kept America alive,
because the choices we make and the actions we take today are a part
of history, too -- history not yet written.
The vision for America has not died; the "land of the free and the
home of the brave" still exists. There is still time to turn the tide
for this great land, but we must join together to make it happen. We
have a debt of honor to the past and to the future, a call to glory
to rescue our homeland from the hands of those who would see her fall.
We cannot, WE MUST NOT, fail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[PAGE 38]
/B/ LETTERS /b/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[PAGE 39 - LETTERS - LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT]
Please hand write or type a copy of this letter, or one like it, each
week to the President of the United States and mail to the address
given.
EXAMPLE LETTER ONLY
[Best to use your own hand and words]
Date: __________
Your Name
Address
City, State, Zip
President Clinton
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, D.C. 20510
Sir:
I am an American Citizen who is aware of the extraordinary powers
conferred upon you by the declared state of "national emergency" under
which America has labored for over sixty years. These powers,
available to the Executive Branch since March 9, 1933 have effectively
placed the American people in slavery, by nationalizing the vital
industries of this nation and removing the common law from our court
system.
I understand that, because because of this on-going "national
emergency", the Constitution of the United States has been effectively
set aside. I remind you now of the oath of office you took upon
entering the office you now occupy by permission of the American
people. When you took your oath of office, you swore that you would
uphold the Constitution of the United States.
I charge you now to carry out the duties and actions of your oath of
office, and return the Constitution to its rightful place in our
government by cancelling the state of national emergency. I strongly
urge you to repeal Proclamations 2039 and 2040, and the amended
version of the Trading With the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917,
specially Section 5(b), under which so many actions injurious to the
spirit and the livelihood of the American people have been taken. If
you are unwilling or unable to take these steps toward restoring
America to the Constitutional Republic she was meant to be, I urge you
to resign from your position as servant of the American people.
I will continue to urge our government to correct this situation until
such time as you have cancelled the state of national emergency, and
returned the Constitution of the United States to its rightful owners
- We, the People.
Sincerely,
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[PAGE 40 - LETTER TO REPS]
Date:___________
Your Name
Address
City, State, Zip
The Honorable ________________________
United States House of Representatives
2449 Rayburn Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Sir (or Madam):
I am taking advantage of my American freedom, while I still have it,
to urge you to stand up for the American people, and make it your
position that the declared state of national emergency, which has
operated in this nation for over 60 years, be cancelled immediately.
I have been apprised of the amendment to Section 5 (b) of the Trading
with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, and understand the
extraordinary powers it has conferred upon the Executive branch. These
excessive powers have been used to sell our nation into slavery by
effective nationalizing our vital industries and separating the
American Citizen from their rights under common law.
I know that the Constitution of the United States has been set aside
under this "national emergency." I urge you now, as a servant of the
American people, to commit yourself to working for its immediate
return to its rightful owners - We, the People. If you are unwilling
or unable to take this stand in defense of your country, I request
that you tender your resignation so that another may take your place
who is willing and/or able to do that you are not.
The Supreme Court once said, "It is not the function of our
government to keep the citizens from falling into error; it is the
function of the citizens to keep the government from falling into
error." As such, I hereby charge you to repeal Proclamations 2039 and
2040, and 12 USC 95 (a) and (b), re-establish the Constitution of the
United States to its rightful position in our government, and Let Our
People Go.
Sincerely,
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[PAGE 41 - LETTER TO SENATORS]
Date:___________
Your Name
Address
City, State, Zip
The Honorable ________________________
United States Senate
703 Hart, Senate Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Sir (or Madam):
I am taking advantage of my American freedom, while I still have it,
to urge you to stand up for the American people, and make it your
position that the declared state of national emergency, which has
operated in this nation for over 60 years, be cancelled immediately.
I have been apprised of the amendment to Section 5 (b) of the Trading
with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, and understand the
extraordinary powers it has conferred upon the Executive branch. These
excessive powers have been used to sell our nation into slavery by
effective nationalizing our vital industries and separating the
American Citizen from their rights under common law.
I know that the Constitution of the United States has been set aside
under this "national emergency." I urge you now, as a servant of the
American people, to commit yourself to working for its immediate
return to its rightful owners - We, the People. If you are unwilling
or unable to take this stand in defense of your country, I request
that you tender your resignation so that another may take your place
who is willing and/or able to do that you are not.
The Supreme Court once said, "It is not the function of our
government to keep the citizens from falling into error; it is the
function of the citizens to keep the government from falling into
error." As such, I hereby charge you to repeal Proclamations 2039 and
2040, and 12 USC 95 (a) and (b), re-establish the Constitution of the
United States to its rightful position in our government, and Let Our
People Go.
Sincerely,
--------------------[END OF TRANSCRIPTION]---------------------------
The remainder of the book contains over 100 pages of certified copies
of pages from the various documents and laws cited in this report.
Since the book contains certified copies, duly dated and signed, it
would be pointless to transcribe them to ascii. If you have enough
snap to realize the grave significance of the information contained in
this report, I'm sure you will want to order the printed book, so you
can show it to others, complete with all certified exhibits, and make
copies to spread around.
:-(LMPG) (Let My People Go)
--hm :-(GStR)
---eof---
--
--
What is the difference between an illegal semi-automatic and an
illegal fully automatic firearm? Firepower.
Robert J. Gonzalez
On Sun, 19 May 1996, Robert Miller wrote:
> Date: Sun, 19 MAY 1996 17:43:12 -0400
> From: Robert Miller <star...@mindspring.com>
> Newgroups: alt.society.sovereign, ca.politics, us.legal, misc.legal
> Subject: Re: signing Calif. Driver's License without prejudice UCC 1-207
>
> In article <319d3772....@news.aimnet.com> car...@tjc.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
> >From: car...@tjc.com (Terry Carroll)
> >Newsgroups: alt.society.sovereign,ca.politics,us.legal,misc.legal
> >Subject: Re: signing Calif. Driver's License without prejudice UCC 1-207
>
> >On 14 May 1996 07:44:05 -0700, frd...@primenet.com (Don Cline) wrote:
>
>
> >>Under the UCC, signing a document "without prejudice" or just "wp"
> >>establishes that your signature is for identification purposes only
> >>and all your natural rights are reserved (not waived by any contract).
>
> Can a bank refuse to except my paychecks if I sign them "Without Prejudice
> UCC 1-207? Do I have any recourse if they do besides go to my own bank?
> The reason I ask is one bank had never heard of it and wouldn't take my next
> paycheck.
>
> Thanks
> Robert Miller
>
I've had bank tellers question it, but once I explain that it's a
reservation of rights, they don't have a problem.
Bill
In article <4npv6e$q...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, frd...@primenet.com (Don
Cline) wrote:
>Because it is statute, just as is the Motor Vehicle Code. But it is
>not "law;" at least not until the court system rules on it. The court
>rulings, and the jury instructions that stand the test of the appeals
>process, is "law."
Bing, wrong again. Black's Law Dicitionary
"Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct
prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force 281
US 34, 50S.SCt. 165"
"Word 'Law' generally contemplates both statutory and case law. Matter of
Estate of Perlberg, Tenn.App 694 S.W.2d 304, 308"
"The 'Law' of a state is to be found in its statutory and constitutional
enactments, as interpreted by its courts, and, in absence of statue law,
in ruling of its courts. Dauer's Estate v Zabel, 9 Mich App 176, 156 N.W.
2d 34, 37."
Looks like Don is just plain wrong again.
>
>The point is, the Penal Code is a criminal code. The Motor Vehicle
>Code is a civil code. Both may undergo judicial scrutiny, and both
>may result in "law," but everyone is subject to the criminal code and
>everyone has the option of claiming rights in their own defense when
>prosecuted under the criminal code. Only those who have a motor
>vehicle operator's license are subject to the motor vehicle code,
>though some activities -- reckless endangerment, DUI, etc., -- are
>prosecutable under the Penal Code, but no one has any rights under the
>Motor Vehicle Code.
The statement that you must have a vehicle operator's license to be
subject to the motor vehicle code is ludicrous. By your "reasoning" all
one need do to avoid punishment on the streets is just don't bother to get
a DL.
>You should stop "guessing" so much, and especially stop asserting your
>"guesses" as fact.
No guessing. I am right as demonstrated above with definition and case
law cites. All we have to this point is your crackpot statements.
>
>>California law divides
>>CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS into three categories: infractions, misdemeanors and
>>felonies. All three are violations of the LAW but with varying
>>penalties. The vehicle code contains infractions, misdemeanors and felony
>>offenses. Only an idiot would think the california vehicle code is any
>>less "the law" than the penal code.
>
>Oh, it is just as much "the law" as the penal code. It's just that it
>conveys no jurisdiction over you unless you have a driver's license.
>Thus it is a civil code, rather than a criminal code.
Utter nonsense. But then that is the basis of writing the UCC section on
your license. A lame argument and one totally lacking in substantive
evidence on your part. If you steal a car, you will charged with
10851(a)VC for that theft, whether or not you have license.
If you are charged under the following section, guess what a stay in the
County jail is not what I call a civil penalty and guess what else, you
don't even need to have a license.
(4) If the person is convicted of a third violation of Section
23152, punishable under Section 23170, the punishment prescribed in
this article shall be enhanced by an imprisonment of 10 days in the
county jail, whether or not probation is granted and no part of which
may be stayed.
Given that so many people that are convicted of the above section have no
drivers license. Largely because it has been revoked.
>And thus it should have no provisions for penalties involving fines or
>incarceration. This is how government subverts the law to its own
>purposes. (Although it often doesn't make a whole lot of difference:
>Everything in the MVC relating to misdemeanors and felonies involving
>driving are repeated in more general terms under the PC provisions
>relating [mostly] to reckless endangerment. So if you do those things
>without ever having had a driver's license, you'll be prosecuted under
>the PC instead of under the MVC -- or you will be prosecuted under
>both as a shotgun approach.)
The usual reference that because you disagree with the way things are,
that somehow government has suberted the law is a silly notion. Yoo hoo,
guess what. It is the government that makes the law and enforces it. If
the government says that the vehicle code will contain fines and
incarceration then that is the law and not a subversion of the law.
Real simple so maybe even you can understand. The vehicle code (at least
in California) is that body of "law" governing the rules of the road and
related offenses, such as car theft (10851) and car tampering (10852) .
You do not need a license to be subject to the vehicle code.
The reason there is a variety of titled codes, such as penal code and
vehicle code, has nothing to do with your reasoning. It is a result of
codification in which the laws governing certain actions of its citizens
is grouped into a logical grouping, often called a code. No subversion,
no cheating, no fooling. Since you have shown a total ignorance regarding
the subject of codification, I will provide you and your other delusional
friends a definition:
"Codification. The process of collecting and arranging systematically,
usually by subject, the laws of a state or country, or the rule and
regulations covering a particular area or subject of law or practice...
The end product may be called a code, revised code or revised statues."
Now if you think you can logically (oops, I forgot, you don't understand
formal logic as taught since the time of ancient Greece) refute the above
I would certainly like to see the effort. Should be no problem for a real
"scholar". Tell you what, Don, you claim to have studied the constituion
for 20 years. How does feel to have wasted so much time in a subject you
have neither an apptitude for nor any meaningful understanding of?
jthom
In <Pine.LNX.3.91.96052...@eci.intserv.com>, "Robert J. Gonzalez" <go...@eci.intserv.com> writes:
>On Sun, 19 May 1996, Robert Miller wrote:
>> In article <319d3772....@news.aimnet.com> car...@tjc.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
>> >On 14 May 1996 07:44:05 -0700, frd...@primenet.com (Don Cline) wrote:
>> >>Under the UCC, signing a document "without prejudice" or just "wp"
>> >>establishes that your signature is for identification purposes only
>> >>and all your natural rights are reserved (not waived by any contract).
>> Can a bank refuse to except my paychecks if I sign them "Without Prejudice
>> UCC 1-207? Do I have any recourse if they do besides go to my own bank?
>> The reason I ask is one bank had never heard of it and wouldn't take my next
>> paycheck.
>I've had bank tellers question it, but once I explain that it's a
>reservation of rights, they don't have a problem.
Endorsing a check "Without Prejudice" wouldn't necessarily concern a bank. The
original poster was close in his interpretation of it. This phrase indicates that you
are accepting this check but are not giving up any of the other rights that you
have in the underlying contract. It is most commonly used when someone tries
to pay you partial payment of a debt and you want to make it clear that you
aren't accepting this as full payment.
Endorsing it "Without Recourse" on the other hand is quite different. This
language affects not the underlying transaction, but the check itself.
:UCC Lecture on.
A check is basically a contract whereby the drawer (original signer) orders the
drawee (the drawer's bank) to pay a certain amount to the payee (you). Since checks
are negotiable the payee can assign the right to receive the money to an assignee
by endorsing the back "pay to the order of xxxx". The payee can also endorse
the check in blank just by signing his or her name. In this case, anyone with
possession of the check has the right to get payment. In most cases when you
give someone a check that is made out to you (also called a third-party check)
you expect some money in return. (Just like cashing your paycheck at the
grocery store).
By statute, this endorsement is also a promise by the payee to make good the
check in case it is dishonored by the drawee (i.e. the check bounces). In this
case, the grocery store can come after you for the face value of your paycheck.
Endorsing the back of the check "Without Recourse" voids the promise that is
made by your endorsement such that the assignee (grocery store) can't come
back after you.
:UCC Lecture off.
So, a bank won't care if you sign the check "Without prejudice", but they would
care that you signed it "Without recourse" because it affects their right to come
after you if the check bounces. Then again, if this is your bank, you probably have
a depositor's agreement that would give them an additional avenue of persuing
you if the check that you deposited "Without recourse" bounced.
Not legal advice, just legal background information.
Peter Bell
In article <4nq96g$6...@nntp1.best.com> Dr...@aol.com writes:
>frd...@primenet.com (Don Cline) wrote:
>
>>Do you have any additional information on that, perhaps more specific?
>>I'm not challenging your statement, but I've been in the
>>constitutional movement for almost twenty years and I haven't heard of
>>that particular scam. I thought he was referring to the International
>>Driver's License you mentioned in the next paragraph.
>
>'IMQ' from the British West Indies, admitting that no such
>jurisdiction exists. (After all, removing oneself from US jurisdiction
>to fall into the clutches of the BWI government could be a
>disaster?!). Needless to say, such a document is no more valid than
>one issued in Ruritania.
I'm not sure exactly who wrote what up above, but I *think* I got the
attributions right for what I've quoted.
A few weeks ago, I put up a long post on this stuff. Ask DejaNews for
<4mma5k$e...@news.ycc.yale.edu>
This scam, pardon, offer, and many others are advertised via
http://www.caprica.com/~scrc/
and the automobile scam, excuse me, offer, is specifically
at http://www.caprica.com/~scrc/page89.htm
They have a mirror, at http://www.cogent.net/scrc
They want payment *only* in Postal Money Orders sent to General Delivery
at the Pasadena Post Office. Odd, that an entrant in the ZIP Code Comedy
competition would use both postal money orders as payment *and* direct
their correspondents to send them mail at a Post Office, with whom they
presumably enter into a contract by crossing the magic line of the Front
Door, analogous to walking across the Magic Line in court, passing the
bar and entering Admiralty Jurisdiction.
Hey, what kind of flags do they fly at a post office?
-peter
be...@minerva.cis.yale.edu | http://pantheon.cis.yale.edu/~bell/bell.html
"Mr. Bell...is an Ivy League pedant with an axe to grind..."
"Apologize and we may continue if it suits me." Jim "Jew Genotype" Bowery
endorses the thoroughness of my research. Thanks, Jim.
Lane Brannock
In <stargazr.3...@mindspring.com> on Sun, 19 May 1996 12:15:23
-0400, Robert Miller wrote:
>In article <4nlja3$f...@netaxs.com> eva...@netaxs.com@netaxs.com (Dan Evans) writes:
>>Newsgroups: alt.society.sovereign,ca.politics,us.legal,misc.legal
>>Subject: Re: signing Calif. Driver's License without prejudice UCC 1-207
>
>>In <stargazr.3...@mindspring.com>, star...@mindspring.com (Robert
>>Miller) writes:
>
>>>Actualy it is a simple violation of a basic U.S. Constitutional Right " the
>>>freedom to travel". A private citizen is not required to have a licience to
>>>travel on public roads and streets.
>
>>A private citizen is not required to have a license to travel, but
>>is required to have a license to drive.
>
>Why is driving a car do much different than a horse and buggy? At one time
>it was as uncommon to see cars on the road as it is to see people in a horse
>and wagon. Imagine a million horse and wagon teams in any of our big cities.
>Do you think they would be any less dangerous than a modern car?
You do not need a licence to drive a horse and buggy. Granted there
aren't too many places that will let you drive on the highways in a
buggy. As to dangerous, 65 mph will cause a lot more harm than 35
mph.
>
>And what about the "National State of Emergency" our country has been in
>for over 60 years that has our Constitution suspended.
>
>Have you read the Emergency and War Powers Act?
No, where can I get a copy. Or e-mail me one if you have it handy.
>
>"We the People" are declaired the enemy as if there were an invasion or
>insurrection. We have no Constitutional rights because we do not have a
>Constitution. The Supreme Court has no power to act on this as long as we
>remain in a State of Emergency.
>
>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."
>
>The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus has been suspended. The
>Govenment may confiscate a persons property as booty as if he were at War
>with the U.S. Govenment.
>In Schools all across America we learn of the Constitution but not that it has
>been Suspended since the great depression.
>
>>Dan Evans
>
>Robert Miller
>Like I've said befor "The people always get the govenment they deserve!
--
Lane Brannock
"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Unknown
Wyatt Copple
The United States is not nor has it continuously been
under a state of emergency. The Emergency ans War Powers Act
does not establish a state of emergency, but rather defines
whenb one can be declared, and what special activities the
government can engage in during one.
Dan Howell
In article <stargazr.3...@mindspring.com>, star...@mindspring.com (Robert Miller) writes:
> >>Under the UCC, signing a document "without prejudice" or just "wp"
> >>establishes that your signature is for identification purposes only
> >>and all your natural rights are reserved (not waived by any contract).
Uh, I don't think so. All it means is that you do not intend to implicityly
waive any rights by signing the document. It only applies to rights that
have something to do with commercial transactions. For example, if you
believe a bill is in error, but don't wish to have your credit rating
ruined by not paying it, you might sign your check to pay the bill "without
prejudice" in order to preserve your right to claim that the bill is in
error.
> Can a bank refuse to except my paychecks if I sign them "Without Prejudice
> UCC 1-207? Do I have any recourse if they do besides go to my own bank?
> The reason I ask is one bank had never heard of it and wouldn't take my next
> paycheck.
At least you are talking about things under the jurisdiction of the UCC.
A bank can probably refuse to accept your paycheck if it has no way to
verify who you are. If you don't have an account there, your "without
prejudice" notation will probably raise suspicions. If you do have an
account at the bank, the bank should probably cash it, but I don't think
the "without prejudice" will affect the bank at all. At best, it might
matter should a civil dispute arise between you and your employer, where
it could be inferred that the mere cashing of your paycheck would be
a waiver of some right, if you didn't indorse it "without prejudice".
I'm not exactly sure what, if any, rights these might be.
--
Dan Howell <dho...@es.xerox.com>
David Feustel
Wyatt Copple (wyatt...@atlantech.net) wrote:
: The United States is not nor has it continuously been
The United States has been under an unbroken state of emergency since
March 9th, 1933. This state of emergency is a consequence of a series
of overlapping states of emergency issued by presidents Franklin
Rooseveldt and successors, up to and including Bill Clinton.
See the Politics and Government section of my web page
[http://www.mixi.net/~feustel] for documentation.
: The Emergency ans War Powers Act
: does not establish a state of emergency, but rather defines
: whenb one can be declared, and what special activities the
: government can engage in during one.
This is correct. Unfortunately, the Constitution makes no provision
for suspension of any part of the Constitution (especially the Bill of
Rights), so the legislation is unconstitutional on its face. In
addition, many of the powers 'given' the government during declared
states of emergency are also unconstitutional since, again, there is
no provision in the Constitution authorizing the use of such powers by
the government.
See my web page for details and pointers
to more information on this subject.
--
feu...@netcom.com
Dave Feustel N9MYI - NRA Life
Fort Wayne, IN For PGP Public Key, finger feu...@netcom.com
219-483-1857 Or else access http://www.mixi.net/~feustel/
Dr...@aol.com
feu...@netcom.com (David Feustel) wrote:
>... Unfortunately, the Constitution makes no provision
>for suspension of any part of the Constitution (especially the Bill of
>Rights), so the legislation is unconstitutional on its face.
Do you guys read the Constitution? My copy says (Art I, Sec 9 in part)
"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."
which refutes your claim instantly. 'Patriot' intellectual dishonesty
never ceases to amaze me.
andy
David Trebilcock
In a previous article, feu...@netcom.com (David Feustel) says:
>
>Wyatt Copple (wyatt...@atlantech.net) wrote:
>: The United States is not nor has it continuously been
>: under a state of emergency.
>
>The United States has been under an unbroken state of emergency since
>March 9th, 1933. This state of emergency is a consequence of a series
>of overlapping states of emergency issued by presidents Franklin
>Rooseveldt and successors, up to and including Bill Clinton.
>
>See the Politics and Government section of my web page
>[http://www.mixi.net/~feustel] for documentation.
>
>: The Emergency ans War Powers Act
>: does not establish a state of emergency, but rather defines
>: whenb one can be declared, and what special activities the
>: government can engage in during one.
>
>This is correct. Unfortunately, the Constitution makes no provision
>for suspension of any part of the Constitution (especially the Bill of
>Rights), so the legislation is unconstitutional on its face. In
>addition, many of the powers 'given' the government during declared
>states of emergency are also unconstitutional since, again, there is
>no provision in the Constitution authorizing the use of such powers by
>the government.
>
Uh, let me see if I get this right. We have been continuously under a
state of emergency since 1933 due to some legislative and administrative
action which is unconstitutional. And as a result of these
unconstitutional and unenforceable actions, we are all living in a
dictatorship where all of our rights under the bill of rights have been
suspended.
But the posters who maintain this position are somehow able to
exercise their right to free expression to alert the rest of us poor
misguided fools to this horrendous development. How does the dictatorial
government allow this type of treasonous treachery?
And I thought Rod Serling had died. My mistake.
--
______________________________________________________|_____________________
I feel so much better since I gave up hope. | David Trebilcock
I am one with the Universe, on a scale of 1 to 10 | av...@lafn.org
Curt Howland
Dishonesty? Hardly. The dishonesty is the suspension
of everything else, when this "Writ of Habeas Corpus"
is expressly stated.
Andy, why are you defending a blatently illegal act?
Curt-
Dr...@aol.com writes:
|> feu...@netcom.com (David Feustel) wrote:
|>
|> >... Unfortunately, the Constitution makes no provision
|> >for suspension of any part of the Constitution (especially the Bill of
|> >Rights), so the legislation is unconstitutional on its face.
|>