Do you know how much your life could change for the better??
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke Fears Economic Collapse If the Fed is Audited
During a 4-hour grilling by Congress, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke made a significant statement that could be perceived in two ways – either as an alarming and veiled threat of Fed-perpetrated financial terrorism, or a prediction that exposure of Fed accounting will culminate in its legal termination. He was questioned by Rep. Duncan on Thursday about his response to the fact that a majority of Representatives (to date, 242 out of 435) are co-sponsoring Ron Paul’s H.R. 1207 bill to audit the Federal Reserve banks.
“Do you think it would cause problems for the Fed or for the economy if that legislation was to pass?”
“My concern about the legislation is that if the GAO (Government Accountability Office) is auditing not only the operational aspects of the programs and the details of the programs but is making judgments about our policy decisions, that it would effectively be a takeover of monetary policy by the Congress and a repudiation of the independence of the Federal Reserve which would be highly destructive to the stability of the financial system, the Dollar and our national economic situation.”
First, I would ask, “Dr. Bernanke, what stability? This nation’s financial system has historically proven to be very un-stable for The People for the 96 years that the Fed has had control of the helm.” The only true stability of the system has been in the growth of wealth held by the banks.
Second, the chairman clarifies once and for all beyond doubt that the Fed is “independent” of the United States government, and that this independence can be repudiated (meaning annulled, abolished). Congress has the power to take back to itself the control of monetary policy for the nation. With Congress in control, at least their policy-making would be free of the private interests of central bank stockholders.
Third, why would a mere audit be construed by the bankers as a takeover? Every other corporation and entire industries are audited, yet they do not consider audits a takeover. The only time a business might fear being taken over due to an audit, would be if they were found to be fraudulent; in which case they would more likely be shut down.
Fourth, why exactly would an audit of the Fed be destructive, unless there were questionable, improper, fraudulent or damning accounting practices, or anti-American policy-making practices? And why was the federal reserve banking system set up to prevent full-disclosure audits in the first place?
United States families have long been struggling to make ends meet, and paying more and more taxes on goods and on income regardless of the technological advances making production more efficient which should afford people more leisure time and a greater ability to build savings; yet the opposite has happened in our nation. Both parents must work, and even that is not enough sometimes. Yet banks have grown to amass billions of dollars in wealth with which to recklessly speculate, while the nation has gone into debt in the trillions of dollars. What is your logical conclusion here? The nation goes into debt, while the banks amass that lost wealth? You must see that the nation’s wealth has been somehow transferred to the bankers. An audit of the Fed central banking system will show just how this was done. Amschel Rothschild said in the early years of his family’s banking empire “Give me the control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes its laws.” President Andrew Jackson said of the central bankers “You are a den of vipers and thieves; I intend to rout you out and by the eternal God I WILL rout you out!” He did, and paid off the national debt, the last time it ever was.
There is no place in the patriot’s life for the attitude of “Ignorance is bliss” regarding the financial policies made for the nation by the people working for the Fed banks. Whatever policies the for-profit Fed has constructed, the policies and profits are not for the taxpayers, they are not for The People of the nation; otherwise we would all be much more wealthy than we are in this, the greatest of nations, today. We would all have savings, we could all afford to be charitable, we could all afford to invest- based on promising companies, not on speculative, casino-type betting on bubbles controlled by powerful banks- if the Fed were not charging interest to the government for the money that the government alone constitutionally has the power to create. The Fed’s system of banking has, however, ensured that our children and grandchildren will be born into paying a share of the debt owed. That is certainly not the ‘better life’ that American Taxpayers work for for their children. Since the government Of The People has the power to create interest-bearing Treasury Bonds, it can create its own non-interest bearing legal tender. Abraham Lincoln’s administration did it, refusing to pay the 24% to 36% interest the central bankers told him they’d charge. Lincoln needed the money to fund the war to keep the states together. Powerful banking interests from England and France had funded those countries’ militaries to back both sides of the North and South. France was poised on the Mexican border, England was poised on the Canadian border. And the United States was fighting for more than tariff law reform- whether they realized it or not- Lincoln’s top priority, as can be seen from his writings, was to preserve the Union. Otherwise, England and France would split the country in two and divide the resources, population and wealth between them. The European central bankers intended to capitalize on the new and prosperous United States. Lincoln’s printing of Greenbacks – non-interest bearing legal tender and fully Constitutional- saved this union; and the Czar’s Russian navy parked on our East and West coasts helped keep England and France at bay while we sorted things out in our Civil War. The Czar at that time was also one of the few leaders who resisted the central bankers’ dominance, and he didn’t want the new United States divided up to add to the English and French agendas, and he admired Lincoln’s outsmarting the central bankers. (Yes, our schools really need to detach themselves from the dumbed-down educational policies largely formed by the Rockefeller foundations.)
Bernanke is afraid that it will be discovered in an audit that the policies for the nation’s money are actually shaped for the benefit of the for-profit owners of the Fed – policies which have certainly worked to ensure the fortunes of the banks at the expense of the nation itself. Is this not treason? Bernanke and every central banker has good cause to be afraid of an audit. The central bankers will no doubt attempt money manipulations and, as always, claim it is not their policy at fault. They do it without fear of audit, why stop when their books are to be examined? It would be protective for the nation if, when an audit IS begun, that the investment banks and firms which have revolving doors for personnel between them and the Fed, have their funds frozen, so they would not be able to throw the economy into chaos.
It is not coincidence that the income tax act was passed together with the Federal Reserve Act; the bankers who authored the federal reserve act saw that their newfound power to charge interest on conjured money loaned to the government would need The People’s money to pay that interest. They have been siphoning the wealth of the American taxpayer in a steady stream for 96 years. The 12 federal reserve banks are owned by their member banks. The member banks are owned by their private owners and stockholders- who require profits above all. Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which forbids banks to co-mingle investment banking with customer service banking was lobbied for by the biggest banks on Wall Street. The Act had been passed to protect depositors (working families) from unscrupulous risk-taking with customers’ money by investment banking. Investment banking is strictly speculative buying and selling of rated assets, betting on markets transactions in derivatives, for the purpose of hopefully making money from speculation for stockholders. The basic legality of ‘conflict of interest’ makes one wonder why and how the big banks were able to get this Act repealed. It is exposure of unquestionable fraud, that any banks or investment firms which lost money in the recent financial meltdown, lost the money for The People. The Peoples’ money should never have been legally permitted to be speculated with by bankers.
Bernanke implies that any attempt to restore monetary policy powers constitutionally granted to the Congress would be seen as a “takeover” (by the bankers of the Fed) and the result would be destructive to the stability of the financial system. Destructive to what financial system exactly? To the monopoly system we’ve had for 96 years which has effectively funneled the wealth of The People into the hands of a few bankers? To the system we’ve had which has perpetrated booms and busts which enable banks to acquire businesses and property for pennies on the dollar? Destructive to the financial system which has built up an unpayable national debt by charging interest to the government for money created out of thin air? And why would audit and discovery necessarily be destructive to the nation’s financial stability? (If you call this stability) Real stability would return, if the interest-charging Fed and its private for-profit policies were eliminated, and the United States would return to printing its own money which charges no interest. The United States can create interest-bearing Treasury bonds to sell for the money it needs; it needs therefore only to create the interest-free money itself, eliminating the ever-growing national debt to the Fed.
"If the Nation can issue a dollar bond it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money broker collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%. Whereas the currency, the honest sort provided by the Constitution pays nobody but those who contribute in some useful way. It is absurd to say our Country can issue bonds and cannot issue currency. Both are promises to pay, but one fattens the usurer and the other helps the People." -Thomas Edison
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Monday, May 25, 2009
If the government can ‘print’ interest-bearing bonds it can ‘print’ its own legal tender
If the government can ‘print’ interest-bearing bonds it can ‘print’ its own legal tender
Letter Written by: Erin McCarthy
Date of Letter: 2009-05-25
Subject: Federal Reserve
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Letter-to-Editor.htm?EdNo=001&Info=0057938
I’d like to propose a suggestion to all the small groups across our nation who are working on their various patriotic endeavors toward raising awareness, making preparations for an economic crash, speaking out for our rights, voting and running and blogging and petitioning and emailing and discussing: That we find a way to advocate for curing the disease causing the decimation of the United States – and the cure is, I believe, for the Congress to take up once again its power to coin (as in ‘coin a phrase’; invent) money; debt-free, interest-free money and issue “the full faith and credit of the United States" directly. Let me present some substance for thought on this subject. President Barrack Obama said on Saturday, May 23, that “We are out of money now. We are operating in deep deficits”. In 1933, Franklin Roosevelt pronounced the country officially bankrupt, and ordered the promise to pay in gold removed from the dollar bill. The dollar was instantly transformed from a promise to pay in legal tender into legal tender itself. [Now] 76 years later, Congress could again acknowledge that the country is officially bankrupt, propose a plan of down-sizing and re-organization, and turn its debts into ‘legal tender’. Andrew Jackson completed the payoff of the federal debt after vetoing the then central banking system charter renewal. It has never been paid off since. Congress today needs to take back the power of creation of money from the privately owned central banking cartel misleadingly named the ‘Federal Reserve’, by buying back its own bonds with its own newly-issued legal tender. If that sounds like a radical solution, wake up and realize that it is exactly what is being done right now – not by the government, but by the private Federal Reserve cartel. The difference is that when the Fed buys the government’s bonds with newly-issued Federal Reserve Notes, it doesn’t take the bonds out of circulation. Two sets of securities (the bonds and the cash) are produced where there should only be one. This highly inflationary result could be eliminated by Congress allowing the government to buy back its own bonds and voiding them out of circulation, as paid off. As it stands, as you may already know, the United States government pays interest to the Fed on ‘loans’ of money which the Fed does not have until it is created by keystroke (fraud) at the request of the government. The government ‘prints’ bonds, and the Fed ‘prints’ cash and they trade stacks. Now, both are treated equally as money in the markets, by foreign central banks, by investors, and traded world-wide in huge volumes equally as money. The government prints bonds (for a few pennies each) to sell for various face values, to raise cash for spending. The incentive to buy the bonds are that they are interest-bearing -- their cost of purchase ‘matures’ later becoming worth more. And so, the government is supposed to pay this interest on the bonds owned by everyone. Now, when you and I purchase bonds, we pay with our existing cash. The Federal Reserve does not pay with existing cash; the Fed ‘printed’ the money into existence to buy them. What’s wrong with this picture? All of the $Billions in bonds owned by the Fed cannot, and have not been able to be paid off on time by the government. So the government takes out loans (it is the Congress’ Constitutional power to borrow money) from the ‘Federal’ Reserve banking system to pay back partial sums, or the government prints more bonds for the Fed to ‘buy’ with more conjured cash for the government to use to pay the last wave of bonds, and the Fed ‘rolls over’ the bonds not yet paid and collects just the interest, and you see how the hole has been dug. When one has dug oneself into a hole, *stop digging!
The point is, if the government can ‘print’ interest-bearing bonds which trade like legal tender, it can ‘print’ its own legal tender and eliminate the accumulation of debt to a privately owned banking cartel! Fiat money holds negative connotations for lots of people. However, like a tally system of notched sticks, or shells, or a system of community currency traded as work hours, or like postage stamps or coupons, fiat money (money not backed by silver or gold) is what we use right now, for the simple reason that we believe it is a trade tool of worth. As we’ve all heard, during war times, cigarettes, chocolate and other things were traded for other goods. The faith of the people trading is what gives money its usefulness or worth. Fiat money, printed as easily as bonds by the government, would continue to be used by the people as ‘receipts’ for trade. The difference is WHO is creating the fiat money that makes the fiat currency a tool for private fraud and theft or a tool for a nation’s prosperity. A debt-backed fiat currency is what the Federal Reserve system has produced for 96 years. The federal debt has grown to some $12 Trillion dollars! The Fed has not provided financial stability in those 96 years, which is why its proponents claimed it was needed in the first place. Instead, the privately owned central banking system has siphoned the wealth of the nation to the hands of a very few, very rich people. What, oh what is the interest on $12 Trillion dollars? The Fed and the government know that The People cannot ever pay this back. Fiat currency produced by the government of The People, For The People and By The People would have no debt attached, and would facilitate commerce between The People. Without the “Federal” Reserve interest to pay, there would be no further need for the tax on income. Technically, the government could mint one coin with the entire federal debt/interest stamped on it, to pay off the debt to the federal reserve. If you didn’t already know, a report issued by the Grace Commission during the Reagan Administration concluded that most federal income tax revenues go just to pay the interest on the government’s burgeoning debt. When the federal income tax was instituted in 1913 (same year as the Federal Reserve Act), all income tax collections were forwarded directly to the Federal Reserve. In 2005, the government spent $352 billion just to service the government’s debt. That is one-third of the total individual income tax revenues that year, which totaled $927 billion. A cover letter addressed to President Reagan stated that one-third of all income taxes were consumed by waste and inefficiency in the federal government, and yet another third of any taxes actually paid went to make up for the taxes not paid by tax evaders and by the burgeoning underground economy, a phenomenon that had blossomed in direct proportion to tax increases. The report concluded: “With two-thirds of everyone’s personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the federal debt and by federal government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their government.” The U.S. Treasury itself in January 2004, demonstrated the simplicity of the procedure to buy back its own bonds when it "called" (or redeemed) a 30-year bond issue before the bond was due. The Treasury announced on January 15, 2004: TREASURY CALLS 9-1/8 PERCENT BONDS OF 2004-09 The Treasury today announced the call for redemption at par on May 15, 2004, of the 9-1/8% Treasury Bonds of 2004-09, originally issued May 15, 1979, due May 15, 2009 (CUSIP No. 9112810CG1). There are $4,606 million of these bonds outstanding, of which $3,109 million are held by private investors. Securities not redeemed on May 15, 2004 will stop earning interest. These bonds are being called to reduce the cost of debt financing. The 9-1/8% interest rate is significantly above the current cost of securing financing for the five years remaining to their maturity. In current market conditions, Treasury estimates that interest savings from the call and refinancing will be about $544 million. Payment will be made automatically by the Treasury for bonds in book-entry form, whether held on the books of the Federal Reserve Banks or in Treasury Direct accounts. The provision for payment "in book entry form" meant that no dollar bills, checks or other paper currencies would be exchanged. Numbers would just be entered into the Treasury's direct online money market fund ("Treasury Direct"). The securities would merely change character - from interest-bearing to non-interest-bearing, from a debt owed to a debt paid. Bondholders failing to redeem their securities by May 15, 2004 could still collect the face amount of the bonds in cash. They would just not receive interest on the bonds. The Treasury's announcement generated some controversy, since government bonds are usually considered good until maturity; but early redemption was actually allowed in the fine print on the bonds. Provisions for early redemption are routinely written into corporate and municipal bonds, so that when interest rates drop, the issuer can refinance the debt at a lower rate. How did the Treasury plan to refinance this $4 billion bond issue at a lower rate? Any bonds not bought by the public would no doubt be bought by the banks. Recall the testimony of Federal Reserve Board Chairman Marriner Eccles: When the banks buy a billion dollars of Government bonds as they are offered . . . they actually create, by a bookkeeping entry, a billion dollars. If the Treasury can cancel its promise to pay interest on a bond issue simply by announcing its intention to do so, and if it can refinance the principal with bookkeeping entries, it can pay off the entire federal debt in that way. It just has to announce that it is calling its bonds and other securities, and that they will be paid "in book-entry form." No cash needs to change hands. The funds can remain in the accounts where the bonds were held, to be reinvested somewhere else. The Treasury did it that time using money from the Fed; it could have done it with its own legal tender. Indeed, at this point the only way to fend off national bankruptcy may be for the government to simply issue fiat money, buy back its own bonds, and void them out. That is the conclusion of G. Edward Griffin in The Creature from Jekyll Island, as well as of Stephen Zarlenga in model legislation called the American Monetary Act. Zarlenga notes that the federal debt needn't be paid off all at once. The government's debts extend several decades into the future and could be paid gradually as the securities came due. PAYING OFF BONDS WITH THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT NOTES OF THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT CAUSING MASSIVE INFLATION The idea that the federal debt could be liquidated by simply printing up money and buying back the government's bonds with it is dismissed out of hand by economists and politicians, on the ground that it would produce Weimar-style runaway inflation. But would it? Inflation results when the money supply increases faster than goods and services, and replacing government securities with cash would not change the size of the money supply. If the government were to buy back its own securities with cash, these instruments representing financial value would merely be converted from interest-bearing into non-interest-bearing financial assets. The funds would move from M2 and M3 into Ml (cash and checks), but the total money supply would remain the same. That would be true if the government were to buy back its securities with cash, but that is very different from what is happening today. When the Federal Reserve uses newly-issued Federal Reserve Notes to buy back federal bonds, it does not void out the bonds. Rather, they become the "reserves" for issuing many times their value in new loans; and the new cash created to buy these securities is added to the money supply as well. That highly inflationary result could be avoided if the government were to buy back its own bonds and take them out of circulation. The Fed way of buying securities greatly increases the money supply and so causes de-valuation of the dollar, the hidden taxation funneling inconceivable wealth to those who create and control the money supply. From 1913 until now inflation of the dollar has been 2950%. A 1913 dollar would now be worth $.034. A wage earner in 1950 could buy a full breakfast, eggs, sausage, hashbrowns, shortstack, juice, and coffee for $.39. This morning I paid $9.60 for the same, an inflation of 2460%. Solving the Social Security Crisis In March 2005, the federal debt clocked in at $7.713 trillion. Of that sum, $3.169 trillion, or 41 percent, was in "intragovernmental holdings" - government trust funds, revolving funds, and special funds. Chief among them was the Social Security trust fund, which held $1.705 trillion of the government's debt. The 59 percent owned by the public was also held largely by institutional investors - U.S. and foreign banks, investment funds, and so forth. Dire warnings ensued that Social Security was going bankrupt, since its holdings were invested in federal securities that the government could not afford to redeem. Defenders of the system countered that Social Security could not actually go bankrupt, because it is a pay-as-you-go system. Today's retirees are paid with withdrawals from the paychecks of today's working people. It is only the fund's excess holdings that are at risk; and it is the government, not Social Security, that is teetering on bankruptcy, because it is the government that lacks the money to pay off its bonds. The issue here, however, is what would happen if the Social Security crisis were resolved by simply cashing out its federal bond holdings with newly-issued U.S. Notes? Would dangerous inflation result? The likely answer is that it would not, because the Social Security fund would have no more money than it had before. The government would just be returning to the fund what the taxpayers thought was in it all along. The bonds would be turned into cash, which would stay in the fund where it belonged, to be used for future baby-boomer pay-outs as intended. Cashing Out the Federal Securities of the Federal Reserve Another institution holding a major chunk of the federal debt is the Federal Reserve itself. The Fed owns about ten percent of the government's outstanding securities. If the government were to buy back these securities with cash, that money too would no doubt stay where it is, where it would continue to serve as the reserves against which loans were made. The cash would just replace the bonds, which would be liquidated and taken out of circulation. Again, consumer prices would not go up, because there would be no more money in circulation than there was before. That is one way to deal with the Federal Reserve's Treasury securities, but an even neater solution has been proposed: the government could just void out the bonds. Recall that the Federal Reserve acquired its government securities without consideration, and that a contract without consideration is void. The legal definition of consideration is “a value that can be objectively determined.” What would the Federal Reserve use in that case for reserves? Article 30 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 gave Congress the right to rescind or alter the Act at any time. If the Act were modified to make the Federal Reserve a truly federal agency, it would not need to keep reserves. It could issue "the full faith and credit of the United States" directly, without having to back its dollars with government bonds. Cashing Out the Holdings of Foreign Central Banks Other major institutional holders of U.S. government debt are foreign central banks. At the end of 2004, foreign holdings of U.S. Treasury debt came to about $1.9 trillion, roughly comparable to the $1.7 trillion held in the Social Security trust fund. Of that sum, foreign central banks owned 64 percent, or $1.2 trillion. What would cashing out those securities do to the money supply? Again, probably not much. Foreign central banks have no use for consumer goods, and they do not invest in real estate. They keep U.S. dollars in reserve to support their own currencies in global markets and to have the dollars available to buy oil as required under a 1974 agreement with OPEC. They keep dollars in reserve either as cash or as U.S. securities. Holding U.S. securities is considered to be the equivalent of holding dollars that pay interest. If these securities were turned into cash, the banks would probably just keep the cash in reserve in place of the bonds - and count themselves lucky to have their dollars back, on what is turning out to be a rather risky investment. Fears have been voiced that the U.S. government may soon be unable to pay even the interest on the federal debt. When that happens, the U.S. can either declare bankruptcy and walk away, or it can buy back the bonds with newly-issued fiat money. Given the choice, foreign investors would probably be happy to accept the fiat money, which they could spend on real goods and services in the economy. And if they complained, the U.S. government could argue that turnabout is fair play. John Succo is a hedge fund manager who writes on the Internet as "Mr. Practical." He estimates that as much as 90 percent of foreign money used to buy U.S. securities comes from foreign central banks, which print their own local currencies, buy U.S. dollars with them, and then use the dollars to buy U.S. securities. The U.S. government would just be giving them their fiat currency back. Market commentators worry that as foreign central banks cash in their U.S. securities, U.S. dollars will come flooding back into U.S. markets, hyperinflating the money supply and driving up consumer prices. But we've seen that this predicted result has not materialized in China, although foreign money has been flooding its economy for thousands of years. American factories and industries are now laying off workers because they lack customers. A return of U.S. dollars to U.S. shores could prime the pump, giving lagging American industries the boost they need to again become competitive with the rest of the world. We are continually being urged to "shop" for the good of the economy. What would be so bad about having our dollars returned to us by some foreigners who wanted to do a little shopping? The American economy may particularly need a boost after the housing bubble collapses. In the boom years, home refinancings have been a major source of consumer spending dollars. If the money supply shrinks by $2 trillion in the next housing correction, as some analysts have predicted, a supply of spending dollars from abroad could be just the quick fix the economy needs to ward off a deflationary crisis. There is the concern that U.S. assets could wind up in the hands of foreign owners, but there is not much we can do about that short of imposing high tariffs or making foreign ownership illegal. We sold them the bonds and we owe them the cash. But that is a completely different issue from the effects of cashing out foreign-held bonds with fiat dollars, which would give foreigners no more claim to our assets than they have with the bonds. In the long run, they would have less claim to U.S. assets, since their dollar investments would no longer be accruing additional dollars in interest. Foreign central banks are reducing their reserves of U.S. securities whether we like it or not. The tide is rolling out, and U.S. bonds will be flooding back to U.S. shores. The question for the U.S. government is simply who will take up the slack when foreign creditors quit rolling over U.S. debt. Today, when no one else wants the bonds sold at auction, the Fed and its affiliated banks step in and buy them with dollars created for the occasion, creating two sets of securities (the bonds and the cash) where before there was only one. This inflationary duplication could be avoided if the Treasury were to buy back its bonds itself and just void them out. Congress could then avoid the debt problem in the future by simply refusing to go into debt. Rather than issuing bonds to meet its costs, it could issue dollars directly. Prelude to a Dangerous Stock Market Bubble? Even if cashing out the government's bonds did not inflate consumer prices, would it not trigger dangerous inflation in the stock market, the bond market and the real estate market, the likely targets of the freed-up money? Let's see .... In December 2005, the market value of all publicly traded companies in the United States was reported at $15.8 trillion. Assume that fully half the $8 trillion then invested in government securing got reinvested in the stock market. If the government's securities paid off gradually as they came due, new money would enter markets only gradually, moderating any inflationary effects; and eventually, the level of stock market investment would have increased by 25 percent. Too much? Not really. The S&P 500 (a stock index tracking 500 companies in leading industries) actually tripled from 1995 to 2000, and no great disaster resulted. Much of that rise was due to the technology bubble which later broke; but by 2006, the S&P had gained back most of its losses. High stock prices are actually good for investors, who make money across the board. Stocks are not household necessities that shoot out of reach for ordinary consumers when prices go up. The stock market is the casino of people with money to invest. Anyone with any amount of money can jump in at any time, at any level. If the market continues to go up, investors will make money on resale. Although this may look like a Ponzi scheme, it really isn't so long as the stocks are bought with cash rather than debt. Like with the inflated values of prized works of art, stock prices would go up due to increased demand; and as long as the demand remained strong, the stocks would maintain their value. The stock market crash of 1929 resulted because investors were buying stock largely on credit – money that didn’t actually exist except as debt. In the scenario considered here, the market would not be pumped up with borrowed money but would be infused with cold hard cash, the permanent money received by bondholders for their government bonds. The market would go up and stay up. At some point, investors would realize that their shares were overpriced relative to the company's assets and would find something else to invest in; but that correction would be a normal one, not the sudden collapse of a bubble built on credit with no "real" money in it. As for the real estate market, cashing out the federal debt would probably have little effect on it. Foreign central banks, Social Security and other trust funds do not buy real estate; and individual investors would not be likely to make that leap either, since cashing out their bonds would give them no more money than they had before. Their ability to buy a house would therefore not have changed. People generally hold short-term T-bills as a convenient way to "bank" money at a modest interest while keeping it liquid. They hold longer-term Treasury .notes and bonds, on the other hand, for a safe and reliable income stream that is hassle-free. Neither purpose would be served by jumping into real estate, which is a very illiquid investment that does not return profits until the property is sold, except through the laborious process of trying to keep it rented. People wanting to keep their funds liquid would probably just move the cash into bank savings or checking accounts; while people wanting a hassle-free income stream would move it into corporate bonds, certificates of deposit and the like. That just leaves the corporate bond market, which would hardly be hurt by an influx of new money either. Fresh young companies would have easier access to startup capital; promising inventions could be developed; new products would burst onto the market; jobs would be created; markets would be stimulated. New capital could only be good for productivity. A final objection that has been raised to paying off the federal debt with newly-issued fiat money is that foreign lenders would be discouraged from purchasing U.S. government bonds in the future. …… "So what?" Once the government reclaims the power to create money from the banks, it will no longer need to sell its bonds to investors. It will not even need to levy income taxes. It will be able to exercise its sovereign right to issue its own money, debt-free. That is what British monarchs did until the end of the seventeenth century, what the American colonists did in the eighteenth century, and what Abraham Lincoln did in the nineteenth century. It has also been proposed in the twenty-first century, not just by "cranks and crackpots" in the money reform camp but by none other than Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke himself. At least, that is what he appears to have proposed. The suggestion was made several years before he became Chairman of the Federal Reserve, in a speech that earned him the nickname "Helicopter Ben". . . . …..The solution of Greenspan's successor Ben Bernanke is not entirely clear, since like his predecessors he has been playing his cards close to the chest. Being tight-lipped actually appears to be part of the job description. When he tried to be transparent, he was roundly criticized for spooking the market. But in a speech he delivered when he had to be less cautious about his utterances, Dr. Bernanke advocated what appeared to be a modern-day version of Lincoln's Greenback solution: instead of filling the balloon with more debt, it could be filled with money issued debt-free by the government. The speech was made in Washington in 2002 and was titled "Deflation: Making Sure 'It' Doesn't Happen Here." Dr. Bernanke stated that the Fed would not be "out of ammunition" to" counteract deflation just because the federal funds rate had fallen to 0 percent. Lowering interest rates was not the only way to get new money into the economy. He said, "the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost." He added, "One important concern in practice is that calibrating the economic effects of nonstandard means of injecting money may be difficult, given our relative lack of experience with such policies." If the government was inexperienced with the policies, they were not the usual "open market operations," in which the government prints bonds and the Fed prints dollars, leaving the government in debt for money created by the Fed. Dr. Bernanke said that the government could print money, and that it could do this at essentially no cost. The implication was that the government could create money without paying interest, and without having to pay it back to the Fed or the banks. Later in the speech he said, "A money-financed tax cut is essentially equivalent to Milton Friedman's famous 'helicopter drop' of money." Dropping money from helicopters was Professor Friedman's hypothetical cure for deflation. The "money-financed tax cut" recommended by Dr. Bernanke was evidently one in which taxes would be replaced with money that was simply printed up by the government and spent into the economy. He added, "[I]n lieu of tax cuts, the government could increase spending on current goods and services or even acquire existing real or financial assets." The government could reflate the economy by printing money and buying hard assets with it - assets such as real estate and corporate stock! That is what the earlier Populists had proposed: the government could buy whole industries and operate them at a profit. The Populists proposed nationalizing essential industries that had been monopolized by giant private cartels, including the railroads, steel — and the banks. The profits generated by these industries would return to the government, to be used in place of taxes. - - The Japanese Experiment Dr. Bernanke went further than merely suggesting the "helicopter-money" solution. He evidently carried it out, and on a massive scale. More accurately, the Japanese carried it out at his behest. During a visit to Japan in May 2003, he said in a speech to the Japanese: My thesis here is that cooperation between the monetary and fiscal authorities in Japan [the central bank and the government] could help solve the problems that each policymaker faces on its own. Consider for example a tax cut for households and businesses that is explicitly coupled with incremental BOJ [Bank of Japan] purchases of government debt - so that the tax cut is in effect financed by money creation. Dr. Bernanke was advising the Japanese government that it could finance a tax cut by creating money! (Note that this is easier to do in Japan than in the United States, since the Japanese government actually owns its central bank, the Bank of Japan.) The same month, the Japanese embarked on what British economist Richard Duncan called "the most aggressive experiment in monetary policy ever conducted."5 In a May 2005 article titled "How Japan Financed Global Reflation," Duncan wrote: In 2003 and the first quarter of 2004, Japan carried out a remarkable experiment in monetary policy - remarkable in the impact it had on the global economy and equally remarkable in that it went almost entirely unnoticed in the financial press. Over those 15 months, monetary authorities in Japan created $35 trillion . . . approximately 1% of the world's annual economic output. $35 trillion . . . would amount to $50 per person if distributed equally among the entire population of the planet. In short, it was money creation on a scale never before attempted during peacetime. Why did this occur? There is no shortage of yen in Japan. Japanese banks have far more deposits than there is demand for loans .... So, what motivated the Bank of Japan to print so much more money when the country is already flooded with excess liquidity? Duncan explained that the shortage of money was not actually in Japan. It was in the United States, where the threat of deflation had appeared for the first time since the Great Depression. The technology bubble of the late 1990s had popped in 2000, leading to a serious global economic slowdown in 2001. Before that, the Fed had been bent on curbing inflation; but now it had suddenly switched gears and was focusing on reflation - the intentional reversal of deflation through government intervention. Duncan wrote: Deflation is a central bank's worst nightmare. When prices begin to fall, interest rates follow them down. Once interest rates fall to zero, as is the case in Japan at present, central banks become powerless to provide any further stimulus to the economy through conventional means and monetary policy becomes powerless. The extent of the US Federal Reserve's concern over the threat of deflation is demonstrated in Fed staff research papers and the speeches delivered by Fed governors at that time. For example, in June 2002, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System published a Discussion Paper entitled, "Preventing Deflation: Lessons from Japan's Experience in 1990s." The abstract of that paper concluded ". . . we draw general lessons from Japan's experience that when inflation interest rates have fallen close to zero, and the risk of deflation is high, stimulus - both monetary and fiscal - should go beyond the levels conventionally implied by baseline forecasts of future inflation and economic activity." Just how far beyond the conventional the Federal Reserve was prepared to go was demonstrated in the Japanese experiment, in which the Bank of Japan created $35 trillion yen over the course of the following year. The yen were then traded with the government's Ministry of Finance (MOF) for Japanese government securities, which paid virtually no interest. The MOF used the yen to buy approximately $320 billion in U.S. dollars from private parties, which were then used to buy U.S. government bonds. Duncan wrote, "It is not certain how much of the $320 billion the MOF did invest into US Treasury bonds, but judging by their past behavior it is fair to assume that it was the vast majority of that amount." Assuming all the dollars were so used, the funds were sufficient to float 77 percent of the U.S. budget deficit in the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004. The effect of this unprecedented experiment, said Duncan, was to finance a broad-based tax cut in the United States with newly-created money. The tax cuts were made in America, but the money was made in Japan. Three large tax cuts took the US. budget from a surplus of $127 billion in 2001 to a deficit of $413 billion in 2004. The difference was a deficit of $540 billion, and it was largely "monetized" by the Japanese. Duncan asked rhetorically, "Was the BOJ/MOF conducting Governor Bernanke's Unorthodox Monetary Policy on behalf of the Fed? . .. Was the BOJ simply serving as a branch of the Fed, as the Federal Reserve Bank of Tokyo, if you will?" If so, Duncan said, "it worked beautifully” The Bush tax cuts and the BOJ money creation that helped finance them at very low interest rates were the two most important elements driving the strong global economic expansion during 2003 and 2004. Combined, they produced a very global reflation.... US tax cuts and low interest rates fuelled consumption in the United States. In turn, growing US consumption shifted Asia's export-oriented economies into overdrive. China played a very important part in that process. . . . China used its large trade surpluses with the US to pay for its large trade deficits with most of its Asian neighbors, including Japan. The recycling of China's US Dollar export earnings explains the incredibly rapid "reflation" that began across Asia in 2003 and that was still underway at the end of 2004. Even Japan's moribund economy began to reflate. In 2004, the global economy grew at the fastest rate in 30 years. Money creation by the Bank of Japan on an unprecedented scale was perhaps the most important factor responsible for that growth. In fact, 35 trillion could have made the difference between global reflation and global deflation. How odd that it went unnoticed. many excerpts from "Web Of Debt" by Ellen Hodgson Brown
Letter Written by: Erin McCarthy
Date of Letter: 2009-05-25
Subject: Federal Reserve
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Letter-to-Editor.htm?EdNo=001&Info=0057938
I’d like to propose a suggestion to all the small groups across our nation who are working on their various patriotic endeavors toward raising awareness, making preparations for an economic crash, speaking out for our rights, voting and running and blogging and petitioning and emailing and discussing: That we find a way to advocate for curing the disease causing the decimation of the United States – and the cure is, I believe, for the Congress to take up once again its power to coin (as in ‘coin a phrase’; invent) money; debt-free, interest-free money and issue “the full faith and credit of the United States" directly. Let me present some substance for thought on this subject. President Barrack Obama said on Saturday, May 23, that “We are out of money now. We are operating in deep deficits”. In 1933, Franklin Roosevelt pronounced the country officially bankrupt, and ordered the promise to pay in gold removed from the dollar bill. The dollar was instantly transformed from a promise to pay in legal tender into legal tender itself. [Now] 76 years later, Congress could again acknowledge that the country is officially bankrupt, propose a plan of down-sizing and re-organization, and turn its debts into ‘legal tender’. Andrew Jackson completed the payoff of the federal debt after vetoing the then central banking system charter renewal. It has never been paid off since. Congress today needs to take back the power of creation of money from the privately owned central banking cartel misleadingly named the ‘Federal Reserve’, by buying back its own bonds with its own newly-issued legal tender. If that sounds like a radical solution, wake up and realize that it is exactly what is being done right now – not by the government, but by the private Federal Reserve cartel. The difference is that when the Fed buys the government’s bonds with newly-issued Federal Reserve Notes, it doesn’t take the bonds out of circulation. Two sets of securities (the bonds and the cash) are produced where there should only be one. This highly inflationary result could be eliminated by Congress allowing the government to buy back its own bonds and voiding them out of circulation, as paid off. As it stands, as you may already know, the United States government pays interest to the Fed on ‘loans’ of money which the Fed does not have until it is created by keystroke (fraud) at the request of the government. The government ‘prints’ bonds, and the Fed ‘prints’ cash and they trade stacks. Now, both are treated equally as money in the markets, by foreign central banks, by investors, and traded world-wide in huge volumes equally as money. The government prints bonds (for a few pennies each) to sell for various face values, to raise cash for spending. The incentive to buy the bonds are that they are interest-bearing -- their cost of purchase ‘matures’ later becoming worth more. And so, the government is supposed to pay this interest on the bonds owned by everyone. Now, when you and I purchase bonds, we pay with our existing cash. The Federal Reserve does not pay with existing cash; the Fed ‘printed’ the money into existence to buy them. What’s wrong with this picture? All of the $Billions in bonds owned by the Fed cannot, and have not been able to be paid off on time by the government. So the government takes out loans (it is the Congress’ Constitutional power to borrow money) from the ‘Federal’ Reserve banking system to pay back partial sums, or the government prints more bonds for the Fed to ‘buy’ with more conjured cash for the government to use to pay the last wave of bonds, and the Fed ‘rolls over’ the bonds not yet paid and collects just the interest, and you see how the hole has been dug. When one has dug oneself into a hole, *stop digging!
The point is, if the government can ‘print’ interest-bearing bonds which trade like legal tender, it can ‘print’ its own legal tender and eliminate the accumulation of debt to a privately owned banking cartel! Fiat money holds negative connotations for lots of people. However, like a tally system of notched sticks, or shells, or a system of community currency traded as work hours, or like postage stamps or coupons, fiat money (money not backed by silver or gold) is what we use right now, for the simple reason that we believe it is a trade tool of worth. As we’ve all heard, during war times, cigarettes, chocolate and other things were traded for other goods. The faith of the people trading is what gives money its usefulness or worth. Fiat money, printed as easily as bonds by the government, would continue to be used by the people as ‘receipts’ for trade. The difference is WHO is creating the fiat money that makes the fiat currency a tool for private fraud and theft or a tool for a nation’s prosperity. A debt-backed fiat currency is what the Federal Reserve system has produced for 96 years. The federal debt has grown to some $12 Trillion dollars! The Fed has not provided financial stability in those 96 years, which is why its proponents claimed it was needed in the first place. Instead, the privately owned central banking system has siphoned the wealth of the nation to the hands of a very few, very rich people. What, oh what is the interest on $12 Trillion dollars? The Fed and the government know that The People cannot ever pay this back. Fiat currency produced by the government of The People, For The People and By The People would have no debt attached, and would facilitate commerce between The People. Without the “Federal” Reserve interest to pay, there would be no further need for the tax on income. Technically, the government could mint one coin with the entire federal debt/interest stamped on it, to pay off the debt to the federal reserve. If you didn’t already know, a report issued by the Grace Commission during the Reagan Administration concluded that most federal income tax revenues go just to pay the interest on the government’s burgeoning debt. When the federal income tax was instituted in 1913 (same year as the Federal Reserve Act), all income tax collections were forwarded directly to the Federal Reserve. In 2005, the government spent $352 billion just to service the government’s debt. That is one-third of the total individual income tax revenues that year, which totaled $927 billion. A cover letter addressed to President Reagan stated that one-third of all income taxes were consumed by waste and inefficiency in the federal government, and yet another third of any taxes actually paid went to make up for the taxes not paid by tax evaders and by the burgeoning underground economy, a phenomenon that had blossomed in direct proportion to tax increases. The report concluded: “With two-thirds of everyone’s personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the federal debt and by federal government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their government.” The U.S. Treasury itself in January 2004, demonstrated the simplicity of the procedure to buy back its own bonds when it "called" (or redeemed) a 30-year bond issue before the bond was due. The Treasury announced on January 15, 2004: TREASURY CALLS 9-1/8 PERCENT BONDS OF 2004-09 The Treasury today announced the call for redemption at par on May 15, 2004, of the 9-1/8% Treasury Bonds of 2004-09, originally issued May 15, 1979, due May 15, 2009 (CUSIP No. 9112810CG1). There are $4,606 million of these bonds outstanding, of which $3,109 million are held by private investors. Securities not redeemed on May 15, 2004 will stop earning interest. These bonds are being called to reduce the cost of debt financing. The 9-1/8% interest rate is significantly above the current cost of securing financing for the five years remaining to their maturity. In current market conditions, Treasury estimates that interest savings from the call and refinancing will be about $544 million. Payment will be made automatically by the Treasury for bonds in book-entry form, whether held on the books of the Federal Reserve Banks or in Treasury Direct accounts. The provision for payment "in book entry form" meant that no dollar bills, checks or other paper currencies would be exchanged. Numbers would just be entered into the Treasury's direct online money market fund ("Treasury Direct"). The securities would merely change character - from interest-bearing to non-interest-bearing, from a debt owed to a debt paid. Bondholders failing to redeem their securities by May 15, 2004 could still collect the face amount of the bonds in cash. They would just not receive interest on the bonds. The Treasury's announcement generated some controversy, since government bonds are usually considered good until maturity; but early redemption was actually allowed in the fine print on the bonds. Provisions for early redemption are routinely written into corporate and municipal bonds, so that when interest rates drop, the issuer can refinance the debt at a lower rate. How did the Treasury plan to refinance this $4 billion bond issue at a lower rate? Any bonds not bought by the public would no doubt be bought by the banks. Recall the testimony of Federal Reserve Board Chairman Marriner Eccles: When the banks buy a billion dollars of Government bonds as they are offered . . . they actually create, by a bookkeeping entry, a billion dollars. If the Treasury can cancel its promise to pay interest on a bond issue simply by announcing its intention to do so, and if it can refinance the principal with bookkeeping entries, it can pay off the entire federal debt in that way. It just has to announce that it is calling its bonds and other securities, and that they will be paid "in book-entry form." No cash needs to change hands. The funds can remain in the accounts where the bonds were held, to be reinvested somewhere else. The Treasury did it that time using money from the Fed; it could have done it with its own legal tender. Indeed, at this point the only way to fend off national bankruptcy may be for the government to simply issue fiat money, buy back its own bonds, and void them out. That is the conclusion of G. Edward Griffin in The Creature from Jekyll Island, as well as of Stephen Zarlenga in model legislation called the American Monetary Act. Zarlenga notes that the federal debt needn't be paid off all at once. The government's debts extend several decades into the future and could be paid gradually as the securities came due. PAYING OFF BONDS WITH THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT NOTES OF THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT CAUSING MASSIVE INFLATION The idea that the federal debt could be liquidated by simply printing up money and buying back the government's bonds with it is dismissed out of hand by economists and politicians, on the ground that it would produce Weimar-style runaway inflation. But would it? Inflation results when the money supply increases faster than goods and services, and replacing government securities with cash would not change the size of the money supply. If the government were to buy back its own securities with cash, these instruments representing financial value would merely be converted from interest-bearing into non-interest-bearing financial assets. The funds would move from M2 and M3 into Ml (cash and checks), but the total money supply would remain the same. That would be true if the government were to buy back its securities with cash, but that is very different from what is happening today. When the Federal Reserve uses newly-issued Federal Reserve Notes to buy back federal bonds, it does not void out the bonds. Rather, they become the "reserves" for issuing many times their value in new loans; and the new cash created to buy these securities is added to the money supply as well. That highly inflationary result could be avoided if the government were to buy back its own bonds and take them out of circulation. The Fed way of buying securities greatly increases the money supply and so causes de-valuation of the dollar, the hidden taxation funneling inconceivable wealth to those who create and control the money supply. From 1913 until now inflation of the dollar has been 2950%. A 1913 dollar would now be worth $.034. A wage earner in 1950 could buy a full breakfast, eggs, sausage, hashbrowns, shortstack, juice, and coffee for $.39. This morning I paid $9.60 for the same, an inflation of 2460%. Solving the Social Security Crisis In March 2005, the federal debt clocked in at $7.713 trillion. Of that sum, $3.169 trillion, or 41 percent, was in "intragovernmental holdings" - government trust funds, revolving funds, and special funds. Chief among them was the Social Security trust fund, which held $1.705 trillion of the government's debt. The 59 percent owned by the public was also held largely by institutional investors - U.S. and foreign banks, investment funds, and so forth. Dire warnings ensued that Social Security was going bankrupt, since its holdings were invested in federal securities that the government could not afford to redeem. Defenders of the system countered that Social Security could not actually go bankrupt, because it is a pay-as-you-go system. Today's retirees are paid with withdrawals from the paychecks of today's working people. It is only the fund's excess holdings that are at risk; and it is the government, not Social Security, that is teetering on bankruptcy, because it is the government that lacks the money to pay off its bonds. The issue here, however, is what would happen if the Social Security crisis were resolved by simply cashing out its federal bond holdings with newly-issued U.S. Notes? Would dangerous inflation result? The likely answer is that it would not, because the Social Security fund would have no more money than it had before. The government would just be returning to the fund what the taxpayers thought was in it all along. The bonds would be turned into cash, which would stay in the fund where it belonged, to be used for future baby-boomer pay-outs as intended. Cashing Out the Federal Securities of the Federal Reserve Another institution holding a major chunk of the federal debt is the Federal Reserve itself. The Fed owns about ten percent of the government's outstanding securities. If the government were to buy back these securities with cash, that money too would no doubt stay where it is, where it would continue to serve as the reserves against which loans were made. The cash would just replace the bonds, which would be liquidated and taken out of circulation. Again, consumer prices would not go up, because there would be no more money in circulation than there was before. That is one way to deal with the Federal Reserve's Treasury securities, but an even neater solution has been proposed: the government could just void out the bonds. Recall that the Federal Reserve acquired its government securities without consideration, and that a contract without consideration is void. The legal definition of consideration is “a value that can be objectively determined.” What would the Federal Reserve use in that case for reserves? Article 30 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 gave Congress the right to rescind or alter the Act at any time. If the Act were modified to make the Federal Reserve a truly federal agency, it would not need to keep reserves. It could issue "the full faith and credit of the United States" directly, without having to back its dollars with government bonds. Cashing Out the Holdings of Foreign Central Banks Other major institutional holders of U.S. government debt are foreign central banks. At the end of 2004, foreign holdings of U.S. Treasury debt came to about $1.9 trillion, roughly comparable to the $1.7 trillion held in the Social Security trust fund. Of that sum, foreign central banks owned 64 percent, or $1.2 trillion. What would cashing out those securities do to the money supply? Again, probably not much. Foreign central banks have no use for consumer goods, and they do not invest in real estate. They keep U.S. dollars in reserve to support their own currencies in global markets and to have the dollars available to buy oil as required under a 1974 agreement with OPEC. They keep dollars in reserve either as cash or as U.S. securities. Holding U.S. securities is considered to be the equivalent of holding dollars that pay interest. If these securities were turned into cash, the banks would probably just keep the cash in reserve in place of the bonds - and count themselves lucky to have their dollars back, on what is turning out to be a rather risky investment. Fears have been voiced that the U.S. government may soon be unable to pay even the interest on the federal debt. When that happens, the U.S. can either declare bankruptcy and walk away, or it can buy back the bonds with newly-issued fiat money. Given the choice, foreign investors would probably be happy to accept the fiat money, which they could spend on real goods and services in the economy. And if they complained, the U.S. government could argue that turnabout is fair play. John Succo is a hedge fund manager who writes on the Internet as "Mr. Practical." He estimates that as much as 90 percent of foreign money used to buy U.S. securities comes from foreign central banks, which print their own local currencies, buy U.S. dollars with them, and then use the dollars to buy U.S. securities. The U.S. government would just be giving them their fiat currency back. Market commentators worry that as foreign central banks cash in their U.S. securities, U.S. dollars will come flooding back into U.S. markets, hyperinflating the money supply and driving up consumer prices. But we've seen that this predicted result has not materialized in China, although foreign money has been flooding its economy for thousands of years. American factories and industries are now laying off workers because they lack customers. A return of U.S. dollars to U.S. shores could prime the pump, giving lagging American industries the boost they need to again become competitive with the rest of the world. We are continually being urged to "shop" for the good of the economy. What would be so bad about having our dollars returned to us by some foreigners who wanted to do a little shopping? The American economy may particularly need a boost after the housing bubble collapses. In the boom years, home refinancings have been a major source of consumer spending dollars. If the money supply shrinks by $2 trillion in the next housing correction, as some analysts have predicted, a supply of spending dollars from abroad could be just the quick fix the economy needs to ward off a deflationary crisis. There is the concern that U.S. assets could wind up in the hands of foreign owners, but there is not much we can do about that short of imposing high tariffs or making foreign ownership illegal. We sold them the bonds and we owe them the cash. But that is a completely different issue from the effects of cashing out foreign-held bonds with fiat dollars, which would give foreigners no more claim to our assets than they have with the bonds. In the long run, they would have less claim to U.S. assets, since their dollar investments would no longer be accruing additional dollars in interest. Foreign central banks are reducing their reserves of U.S. securities whether we like it or not. The tide is rolling out, and U.S. bonds will be flooding back to U.S. shores. The question for the U.S. government is simply who will take up the slack when foreign creditors quit rolling over U.S. debt. Today, when no one else wants the bonds sold at auction, the Fed and its affiliated banks step in and buy them with dollars created for the occasion, creating two sets of securities (the bonds and the cash) where before there was only one. This inflationary duplication could be avoided if the Treasury were to buy back its bonds itself and just void them out. Congress could then avoid the debt problem in the future by simply refusing to go into debt. Rather than issuing bonds to meet its costs, it could issue dollars directly. Prelude to a Dangerous Stock Market Bubble? Even if cashing out the government's bonds did not inflate consumer prices, would it not trigger dangerous inflation in the stock market, the bond market and the real estate market, the likely targets of the freed-up money? Let's see .... In December 2005, the market value of all publicly traded companies in the United States was reported at $15.8 trillion. Assume that fully half the $8 trillion then invested in government securing got reinvested in the stock market. If the government's securities paid off gradually as they came due, new money would enter markets only gradually, moderating any inflationary effects; and eventually, the level of stock market investment would have increased by 25 percent. Too much? Not really. The S&P 500 (a stock index tracking 500 companies in leading industries) actually tripled from 1995 to 2000, and no great disaster resulted. Much of that rise was due to the technology bubble which later broke; but by 2006, the S&P had gained back most of its losses. High stock prices are actually good for investors, who make money across the board. Stocks are not household necessities that shoot out of reach for ordinary consumers when prices go up. The stock market is the casino of people with money to invest. Anyone with any amount of money can jump in at any time, at any level. If the market continues to go up, investors will make money on resale. Although this may look like a Ponzi scheme, it really isn't so long as the stocks are bought with cash rather than debt. Like with the inflated values of prized works of art, stock prices would go up due to increased demand; and as long as the demand remained strong, the stocks would maintain their value. The stock market crash of 1929 resulted because investors were buying stock largely on credit – money that didn’t actually exist except as debt. In the scenario considered here, the market would not be pumped up with borrowed money but would be infused with cold hard cash, the permanent money received by bondholders for their government bonds. The market would go up and stay up. At some point, investors would realize that their shares were overpriced relative to the company's assets and would find something else to invest in; but that correction would be a normal one, not the sudden collapse of a bubble built on credit with no "real" money in it. As for the real estate market, cashing out the federal debt would probably have little effect on it. Foreign central banks, Social Security and other trust funds do not buy real estate; and individual investors would not be likely to make that leap either, since cashing out their bonds would give them no more money than they had before. Their ability to buy a house would therefore not have changed. People generally hold short-term T-bills as a convenient way to "bank" money at a modest interest while keeping it liquid. They hold longer-term Treasury .notes and bonds, on the other hand, for a safe and reliable income stream that is hassle-free. Neither purpose would be served by jumping into real estate, which is a very illiquid investment that does not return profits until the property is sold, except through the laborious process of trying to keep it rented. People wanting to keep their funds liquid would probably just move the cash into bank savings or checking accounts; while people wanting a hassle-free income stream would move it into corporate bonds, certificates of deposit and the like. That just leaves the corporate bond market, which would hardly be hurt by an influx of new money either. Fresh young companies would have easier access to startup capital; promising inventions could be developed; new products would burst onto the market; jobs would be created; markets would be stimulated. New capital could only be good for productivity. A final objection that has been raised to paying off the federal debt with newly-issued fiat money is that foreign lenders would be discouraged from purchasing U.S. government bonds in the future. …… "So what?" Once the government reclaims the power to create money from the banks, it will no longer need to sell its bonds to investors. It will not even need to levy income taxes. It will be able to exercise its sovereign right to issue its own money, debt-free. That is what British monarchs did until the end of the seventeenth century, what the American colonists did in the eighteenth century, and what Abraham Lincoln did in the nineteenth century. It has also been proposed in the twenty-first century, not just by "cranks and crackpots" in the money reform camp but by none other than Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke himself. At least, that is what he appears to have proposed. The suggestion was made several years before he became Chairman of the Federal Reserve, in a speech that earned him the nickname "Helicopter Ben". . . . …..The solution of Greenspan's successor Ben Bernanke is not entirely clear, since like his predecessors he has been playing his cards close to the chest. Being tight-lipped actually appears to be part of the job description. When he tried to be transparent, he was roundly criticized for spooking the market. But in a speech he delivered when he had to be less cautious about his utterances, Dr. Bernanke advocated what appeared to be a modern-day version of Lincoln's Greenback solution: instead of filling the balloon with more debt, it could be filled with money issued debt-free by the government. The speech was made in Washington in 2002 and was titled "Deflation: Making Sure 'It' Doesn't Happen Here." Dr. Bernanke stated that the Fed would not be "out of ammunition" to" counteract deflation just because the federal funds rate had fallen to 0 percent. Lowering interest rates was not the only way to get new money into the economy. He said, "the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost." He added, "One important concern in practice is that calibrating the economic effects of nonstandard means of injecting money may be difficult, given our relative lack of experience with such policies." If the government was inexperienced with the policies, they were not the usual "open market operations," in which the government prints bonds and the Fed prints dollars, leaving the government in debt for money created by the Fed. Dr. Bernanke said that the government could print money, and that it could do this at essentially no cost. The implication was that the government could create money without paying interest, and without having to pay it back to the Fed or the banks. Later in the speech he said, "A money-financed tax cut is essentially equivalent to Milton Friedman's famous 'helicopter drop' of money." Dropping money from helicopters was Professor Friedman's hypothetical cure for deflation. The "money-financed tax cut" recommended by Dr. Bernanke was evidently one in which taxes would be replaced with money that was simply printed up by the government and spent into the economy. He added, "[I]n lieu of tax cuts, the government could increase spending on current goods and services or even acquire existing real or financial assets." The government could reflate the economy by printing money and buying hard assets with it - assets such as real estate and corporate stock! That is what the earlier Populists had proposed: the government could buy whole industries and operate them at a profit. The Populists proposed nationalizing essential industries that had been monopolized by giant private cartels, including the railroads, steel — and the banks. The profits generated by these industries would return to the government, to be used in place of taxes. - - The Japanese Experiment Dr. Bernanke went further than merely suggesting the "helicopter-money" solution. He evidently carried it out, and on a massive scale. More accurately, the Japanese carried it out at his behest. During a visit to Japan in May 2003, he said in a speech to the Japanese: My thesis here is that cooperation between the monetary and fiscal authorities in Japan [the central bank and the government] could help solve the problems that each policymaker faces on its own. Consider for example a tax cut for households and businesses that is explicitly coupled with incremental BOJ [Bank of Japan] purchases of government debt - so that the tax cut is in effect financed by money creation. Dr. Bernanke was advising the Japanese government that it could finance a tax cut by creating money! (Note that this is easier to do in Japan than in the United States, since the Japanese government actually owns its central bank, the Bank of Japan.) The same month, the Japanese embarked on what British economist Richard Duncan called "the most aggressive experiment in monetary policy ever conducted."5 In a May 2005 article titled "How Japan Financed Global Reflation," Duncan wrote: In 2003 and the first quarter of 2004, Japan carried out a remarkable experiment in monetary policy - remarkable in the impact it had on the global economy and equally remarkable in that it went almost entirely unnoticed in the financial press. Over those 15 months, monetary authorities in Japan created $35 trillion . . . approximately 1% of the world's annual economic output. $35 trillion . . . would amount to $50 per person if distributed equally among the entire population of the planet. In short, it was money creation on a scale never before attempted during peacetime. Why did this occur? There is no shortage of yen in Japan. Japanese banks have far more deposits than there is demand for loans .... So, what motivated the Bank of Japan to print so much more money when the country is already flooded with excess liquidity? Duncan explained that the shortage of money was not actually in Japan. It was in the United States, where the threat of deflation had appeared for the first time since the Great Depression. The technology bubble of the late 1990s had popped in 2000, leading to a serious global economic slowdown in 2001. Before that, the Fed had been bent on curbing inflation; but now it had suddenly switched gears and was focusing on reflation - the intentional reversal of deflation through government intervention. Duncan wrote: Deflation is a central bank's worst nightmare. When prices begin to fall, interest rates follow them down. Once interest rates fall to zero, as is the case in Japan at present, central banks become powerless to provide any further stimulus to the economy through conventional means and monetary policy becomes powerless. The extent of the US Federal Reserve's concern over the threat of deflation is demonstrated in Fed staff research papers and the speeches delivered by Fed governors at that time. For example, in June 2002, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System published a Discussion Paper entitled, "Preventing Deflation: Lessons from Japan's Experience in 1990s." The abstract of that paper concluded ". . . we draw general lessons from Japan's experience that when inflation interest rates have fallen close to zero, and the risk of deflation is high, stimulus - both monetary and fiscal - should go beyond the levels conventionally implied by baseline forecasts of future inflation and economic activity." Just how far beyond the conventional the Federal Reserve was prepared to go was demonstrated in the Japanese experiment, in which the Bank of Japan created $35 trillion yen over the course of the following year. The yen were then traded with the government's Ministry of Finance (MOF) for Japanese government securities, which paid virtually no interest. The MOF used the yen to buy approximately $320 billion in U.S. dollars from private parties, which were then used to buy U.S. government bonds. Duncan wrote, "It is not certain how much of the $320 billion the MOF did invest into US Treasury bonds, but judging by their past behavior it is fair to assume that it was the vast majority of that amount." Assuming all the dollars were so used, the funds were sufficient to float 77 percent of the U.S. budget deficit in the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004. The effect of this unprecedented experiment, said Duncan, was to finance a broad-based tax cut in the United States with newly-created money. The tax cuts were made in America, but the money was made in Japan. Three large tax cuts took the US. budget from a surplus of $127 billion in 2001 to a deficit of $413 billion in 2004. The difference was a deficit of $540 billion, and it was largely "monetized" by the Japanese. Duncan asked rhetorically, "Was the BOJ/MOF conducting Governor Bernanke's Unorthodox Monetary Policy on behalf of the Fed? . .. Was the BOJ simply serving as a branch of the Fed, as the Federal Reserve Bank of Tokyo, if you will?" If so, Duncan said, "it worked beautifully” The Bush tax cuts and the BOJ money creation that helped finance them at very low interest rates were the two most important elements driving the strong global economic expansion during 2003 and 2004. Combined, they produced a very global reflation.... US tax cuts and low interest rates fuelled consumption in the United States. In turn, growing US consumption shifted Asia's export-oriented economies into overdrive. China played a very important part in that process. . . . China used its large trade surpluses with the US to pay for its large trade deficits with most of its Asian neighbors, including Japan. The recycling of China's US Dollar export earnings explains the incredibly rapid "reflation" that began across Asia in 2003 and that was still underway at the end of 2004. Even Japan's moribund economy began to reflate. In 2004, the global economy grew at the fastest rate in 30 years. Money creation by the Bank of Japan on an unprecedented scale was perhaps the most important factor responsible for that growth. In fact, 35 trillion could have made the difference between global reflation and global deflation. How odd that it went unnoticed. many excerpts from "Web Of Debt" by Ellen Hodgson Brown
Monday, May 18, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
Trading With The Enemy Act
In 1917, the Trading with the Enemy Act (Public Law 65-91, 65th Congress, Session I, Chapters 105, 106, October 6, 1917) was passed and which defined, regulated and punished trading with enemies, who were then required by that act to be licensed by the government to do business. The National Banking System Act (Public Law 73-1, 73rd Congress, Session I, Chapter 1, March 9, 1933), Executive Proclamation 2038 (March 6, 1933), Executive Proclamation 2039 (March 9, 1933), and Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111 and 6260 prove that in 1933, the United States Government formed under the executive privilege of the original martial rule went bankrupt, and a new state of national emergency was declared under which United States citizens were named as the enemy to the government and the banking system as per the provisions of the Trading with the Enemy Act. The legal system provided for in the Constitution was formally changed in 1938 through the Supreme Court decision in the case of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 US 64, 82 L.Ed. 1188. On April 25, 1938, the Supreme Court overturned the standing precedents of the prior 150 years concerning "COMMON LAW" in the federal government.
THERE IS NO FEDERAL COMMON LAW, AND CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO DECLARE SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF COMMON LAW applicable IN A STATE, WHETHER they be LOCAL or GENERAL in their nature, be they COMMERCIAL LAW or a part of LAW OF TORTS." (See: ERIE RAILROAD CO. vs. THOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L. Ed. 1188)
The significance is that since the Erie Decision, no cases are allowed to be cited that are prior to 1938. There can be no mixing of the old law with the new law. The Common Law is the fountain source of Substantive and Remedial Rights, if not our very Liberties. (See also: Who is Running America?)
THERE IS NO FEDERAL COMMON LAW, AND CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO DECLARE SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF COMMON LAW applicable IN A STATE, WHETHER they be LOCAL or GENERAL in their nature, be they COMMERCIAL LAW or a part of LAW OF TORTS." (See: ERIE RAILROAD CO. vs. THOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L. Ed. 1188)
The significance is that since the Erie Decision, no cases are allowed to be cited that are prior to 1938. There can be no mixing of the old law with the new law. The Common Law is the fountain source of Substantive and Remedial Rights, if not our very Liberties. (See also: Who is Running America?)
Freedom Videos
"You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out... If people only understood the rank injustice of the money and banking system, there would be a revolution by morning." --Andrew Jackson
Click here to view "Freedom to Fascism"
Click here to view "Money as Debt "
Click Here to view Senator Ron Paul
Click Here to view "Loose Change"
Click --> for the National Debt Clock --> http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Click here to view "Freedom to Fascism"
Click here to view "Money as Debt "
Click Here to view Senator Ron Paul
Click Here to view "Loose Change"
Click --> for the National Debt Clock --> http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
The Original 13th Amendment
The 13th Article of Amendment
to the original Constitution of the United States of America
“If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”
to the original Constitution of the United States of America
“If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”
The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871
The District of Columbia Act of 1871
What did it do?
Initial review of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 seems like it only sets up a local government (like Chicago or Seattle); how do you get that they formed a private corporation?
If you take the Act out of its historical context and, from the present looking to the past, imagine who the parties involved are, we might agree. However, by doing that you will never understand what happened; therefore, to best understand what really happened we follow our:
Standard for Review
Rule 1: To understand any relationship you must:
First understand who the parties are;
Always know yourself first
Discover the true nature of all other parties second
Then you must understand the environmental nature of the relationship; and,
Only then do the actual terms of the relationship begin to have meaning and bearing on the relationship.
Rule 2: To have any hope of understanding any particular situation in any relationship you must have first applied Rule 1, only then do the details of the situation in question have any meaning; therefore, review such details in accord with Rule 1 as well.
Thus, to understand the parties involved in the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, we must first understand who the parties are involved in the relationship described by the Act. We are not here going to delve into the Act in its entirety, suffice it to say, looking over the situation we find the Act is one made by the original jurisdiction Congress, set by the Constitution for the United States of America. The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 describes its venue as: “all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia”. The District of Columbia was originally provided for in the Constitution for the United States of America (Sept. 17, 1787) at Article 1 Section 8, specifically in the last two clauses. Then, on July 16, 1790, in accord with the provisions of those clauses, the Territory was formed in the District of Columbia Act, wherein the “ten mile square” territory was permanently created and made the permanent location of the country’s government, that is to say, the “territory” includes the actual government. Under the Act Congress also made the President the civic leader of the local government in all matters in said Territory. Then on February 27, 1801, under the second District of Columbia Act, two counties were formed and their respective officers and district judges were appointed. Further, the established town governments of Alexandria, Georgetown and Washington were recognized as constituted and placed under the laws of the District, its judges, etc. The popular names for this “Charter Act” are the, “District of Columbia Organization Act” and the “District of Columbia Act ”, which Act the Supreme Court has recognized was the incorporation of the “municipality” known as the “District of Columbia”. Then on March 3, 1801 a Supplementary Act to that last Act, noted here, added the authority that the Marshals appointed by the respective District Court Judges collectively form a County Commission with the authority to appoint all officers as may be needed in similarity to the respective State officials in the states whence the counties Washington and Alexandria came, those being Maryland and Virginia, respectively.
According to the United States Supreme Court those charter acts (first acts) were the official incorporation of the formal municipal government of the District of Columbia as chartered by Congress in accord with the Constitution’s provision. Again, the Supreme Court called that body of government “a corporation”, with the right to sue and be sued. Since 1801 The District of Columbia has been consistently recognized as a “municipal corporation” with its own government.
That sets the basics for the first rule of our Standard for Review, know the parties. What we have presented is sufficient to show the basics of who the parties are as they related to resolving the answer to the question above. We admonish everyone to prove the facts for themselves by their own research.
The second rule from our Standard for Review is: “Then you must understand the environmental nature of the relationship.” With that in mind let’s consider the events of the time: the Civil War had recently ended and the country was still under Lincoln’s Conscription Act (Martial Law). Congress had at least three problems they could see no way to directly cure by following the laws of the land: they were out of funds, they had promised 40 acres of land to each slave that left the South to fight for the North and they had to reintegrate the south into the Union, which they could not do without controlling the appointment of the Southern States Congressional members. There were other problems but these three stand out from the rest. That is enough about the environment for the purposes of this review, however the more you study the historical events of this time the more obvious the relationships will become and the more proof you will amass to prove the facts of what actually happened. In the interest of time and space in this response we will move on.
The last step of the Standard for Review’s discovery process requires a review of the actual terms of the relationship. Thus, we review the first paragraph of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, which follows:
Congress wrote:
That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes … and exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation
Knowing the government of the District of Columbia was already “created into a government” and so formed into a municipal incorporation in 1801 under the District of Columbia Acts, we wonder, even with Congress’ constitutional authority to pass any law within the ten mile square of the District, how do you create, or incorporate, for the first time a municipal government that has already been in existence as a municipal corporation for over 60 years? The obvious answer is, “It’s impossible!” There is no way to pass an “Organic Act” when the Charter Act is already in place, because the two words (organic and charter) have the same meaning—The First Act. Even Congress cannot change history; though historians can make it appear to change by rewriting it for those unwilling to study the past from the records. The records speak for themselves only if we study them.
When you consider the historical facts, the only meaning left for the terms given in the opening paragraph of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 (and that which follows) is, the “municipal corporation” that was created is a private corporation owned by the existent municipality. And the only government created in that Act was the same government any private corporation has within the operation of its own corporate construct. Thus, we call it Corp. U.S. We also note Congress reserved the right, granted them in the Constitution, to complete dictatorial authority over their Corp. U.S. construct, without regard for its internal operations or officers. Thus, Congress can use it within the ten mile square as they see fit to both govern the municipality as if it were the municipal government and to use it to do things the Constitution did not grant them the privilege of doing.
What did it do?
Initial review of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 seems like it only sets up a local government (like Chicago or Seattle); how do you get that they formed a private corporation?
If you take the Act out of its historical context and, from the present looking to the past, imagine who the parties involved are, we might agree. However, by doing that you will never understand what happened; therefore, to best understand what really happened we follow our:
Standard for Review
Rule 1: To understand any relationship you must:
First understand who the parties are;
Always know yourself first
Discover the true nature of all other parties second
Then you must understand the environmental nature of the relationship; and,
Only then do the actual terms of the relationship begin to have meaning and bearing on the relationship.
Rule 2: To have any hope of understanding any particular situation in any relationship you must have first applied Rule 1, only then do the details of the situation in question have any meaning; therefore, review such details in accord with Rule 1 as well.
Thus, to understand the parties involved in the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, we must first understand who the parties are involved in the relationship described by the Act. We are not here going to delve into the Act in its entirety, suffice it to say, looking over the situation we find the Act is one made by the original jurisdiction Congress, set by the Constitution for the United States of America. The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 describes its venue as: “all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia”. The District of Columbia was originally provided for in the Constitution for the United States of America (Sept. 17, 1787) at Article 1 Section 8, specifically in the last two clauses. Then, on July 16, 1790, in accord with the provisions of those clauses, the Territory was formed in the District of Columbia Act, wherein the “ten mile square” territory was permanently created and made the permanent location of the country’s government, that is to say, the “territory” includes the actual government. Under the Act Congress also made the President the civic leader of the local government in all matters in said Territory. Then on February 27, 1801, under the second District of Columbia Act, two counties were formed and their respective officers and district judges were appointed. Further, the established town governments of Alexandria, Georgetown and Washington were recognized as constituted and placed under the laws of the District, its judges, etc. The popular names for this “Charter Act” are the, “District of Columbia Organization Act” and the “District of Columbia Act ”, which Act the Supreme Court has recognized was the incorporation of the “municipality” known as the “District of Columbia”. Then on March 3, 1801 a Supplementary Act to that last Act, noted here, added the authority that the Marshals appointed by the respective District Court Judges collectively form a County Commission with the authority to appoint all officers as may be needed in similarity to the respective State officials in the states whence the counties Washington and Alexandria came, those being Maryland and Virginia, respectively.
According to the United States Supreme Court those charter acts (first acts) were the official incorporation of the formal municipal government of the District of Columbia as chartered by Congress in accord with the Constitution’s provision. Again, the Supreme Court called that body of government “a corporation”, with the right to sue and be sued. Since 1801 The District of Columbia has been consistently recognized as a “municipal corporation” with its own government.
That sets the basics for the first rule of our Standard for Review, know the parties. What we have presented is sufficient to show the basics of who the parties are as they related to resolving the answer to the question above. We admonish everyone to prove the facts for themselves by their own research.
The second rule from our Standard for Review is: “Then you must understand the environmental nature of the relationship.” With that in mind let’s consider the events of the time: the Civil War had recently ended and the country was still under Lincoln’s Conscription Act (Martial Law). Congress had at least three problems they could see no way to directly cure by following the laws of the land: they were out of funds, they had promised 40 acres of land to each slave that left the South to fight for the North and they had to reintegrate the south into the Union, which they could not do without controlling the appointment of the Southern States Congressional members. There were other problems but these three stand out from the rest. That is enough about the environment for the purposes of this review, however the more you study the historical events of this time the more obvious the relationships will become and the more proof you will amass to prove the facts of what actually happened. In the interest of time and space in this response we will move on.
The last step of the Standard for Review’s discovery process requires a review of the actual terms of the relationship. Thus, we review the first paragraph of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, which follows:
Congress wrote:
That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes … and exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation
Knowing the government of the District of Columbia was already “created into a government” and so formed into a municipal incorporation in 1801 under the District of Columbia Acts, we wonder, even with Congress’ constitutional authority to pass any law within the ten mile square of the District, how do you create, or incorporate, for the first time a municipal government that has already been in existence as a municipal corporation for over 60 years? The obvious answer is, “It’s impossible!” There is no way to pass an “Organic Act” when the Charter Act is already in place, because the two words (organic and charter) have the same meaning—The First Act. Even Congress cannot change history; though historians can make it appear to change by rewriting it for those unwilling to study the past from the records. The records speak for themselves only if we study them.
When you consider the historical facts, the only meaning left for the terms given in the opening paragraph of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 (and that which follows) is, the “municipal corporation” that was created is a private corporation owned by the existent municipality. And the only government created in that Act was the same government any private corporation has within the operation of its own corporate construct. Thus, we call it Corp. U.S. We also note Congress reserved the right, granted them in the Constitution, to complete dictatorial authority over their Corp. U.S. construct, without regard for its internal operations or officers. Thus, Congress can use it within the ten mile square as they see fit to both govern the municipality as if it were the municipal government and to use it to do things the Constitution did not grant them the privilege of doing.
Original Jurisdiction Government
Historical Outline
1st: Martial Law is declared by President Lincoln on April 24th, 1863, with General Order No. 100; under martial law authority, Congress and President Lincoln institute continuous martial law by ordering the states (people) either conscribe troops and or provide money in support of the North or be recognized as enemies of the nation; this martial law Act of Congress is still in effect today. This martial law authority gives the President (with or without Congress) the dictatorial authority to do anything that can be done by government in accord with the Constitution of the United States of America. This conscription act remains in effect to this very day and is the foundation of Presidential Executive Orders authority; it was magnified in 1917 with The Trading with the Enemy Act (Public Law 65-91, 65th Congress, Session I, Chapters 105, 106, October 6, 1917). and again in 1933 with the Emergency War Powers Act, which is ratified and enhanced almost every year to this date by Congress. Today these Acts address the people of the United States themselves as their enemy.
2nd: The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 created a “municipal corporation” to govern the District of Columbia. Considering the fact that the municipal government itself was incorporated in 1808, an “Organic Act” (first Act) using the term “municipal corporation” in 1871 can only mean a private corporation owned by the municipality. Hereinafter we will call that private corporation, “Corp. U.S.” By consistent usage, Corp. U.S. trademarked the name, “United States Government” referring to themselves. The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 places Congress in control (like a corporate board) and gives the purpose of the act to form a governing body over the municipality; this allowed Congress to direct the business needs of the government under the existent martial law and provided them with corporate abilities they would not otherwise have. This was done under the constitutional authority for Congress to pass any law within the ten mile square of the District of Columbia.
3rd: In said Act, Corp. U.S. adopted their own constitution (United States Constitution), which was identical to the national Constitution (Constitution of the United States of America) except that it was missing the national constitution’s 13th Amendment and the national constitution's 14th, 15th and 16th amendments are respectively numbered 13th, 14th and 15th amendments in the Corp. U.S. Constitution. At this point take special notice and remember this Corp. U.S. method of adopting their own Constitution, they will add to it in the same manner in 1913.
4th: Corp. U.S. began to generate debts via bonds etc., which came due in 1912, but they could not pay their debts so the 7 families that bought up the bonds demanded payment and Corp. U.S. could not pay. Said families settled the debt for the payments of all of Corp. U.S.' assets and for all of the assets of the Treasury of the United States of America.
5th: As 1913 began, Corp. U.S. had no funds to carry out the necessary business needs of the government so they went to said families and asked if they could borrow some money. The families said no (Corp. U.S. had already demonstrated that they would not repay their debts in full). The families had foreseen this situation and had the year before finalized the creation of a private corporation of the name "Federal Reserve Bank". Corp. U.S. formed a relationship with the Federal Reserve Bank whereby they could transact their business via note rather than with money. Notice that this relationship was one made between two private corporations and did not involve government; that is where most people error in understanding the Federal Reserve Bank system—again it has no government relation at all. The private contracts that set the whole system up even recognize that if anything therein proposed is found illegal or impossible to perform it is excluded from the agreements and the remaining elements remain in full force and effect.
6th: Almost simultaneously with the last fact (also in 1913), Corp. U.S. adopts (as if ratified) their own 16th amendment. Tax protesters challenge the IRS tax collection system based on this fact, however when we remember that Corp. U.S. originally created their constitution by simply drafting it and adopting it; there is no difference between that adoption and this—such is the nature of corporate enactments—when the corporate board (Congress) tells the secretary to enter the amendment as ratified (even thought the States had not ratified it) the Se3cretary was instructed that the Representatives word alone was sufficient for ratification. You must also note, this amendment has nothing to do with our nation, with our people or with our national Constitution, which already had its own 16th amendment. The Supreme Court (in BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)) ruled the 16th amendment did nothing that was not already done other than to make plain and clear the right of the United States (Corp. U.S.) to tax corporations and government employees. We agree, considering that they were created under the authority of Corp. U.S.
7th: Next (also 1913) Corp. U.S., through Congress, adopts (as if ratified) its 17th amendment. This amendment is not only not ratified, it is not constitutional; the nation's Constitution forbids Congress from even discussing the matter of where Senators are elected, which is the subject matter of this amendment; therefore they cannot pass such and Act and then of their own volition, order it entered as ratified. According to the United States Supreme Court, for Congress to propose such an amendment they would first have to pass an amendment that gave them the authority to discuss the matter.
8th: Accordingly, in 1914, the Freshman class and all Senators that successfully ran for reelection in 1913 by popular vote were seated in Corp. U.S. Senate capacity only; their respective seats from their States remained vacant because neither the State Senates nor the State Governors appointed new Senators to replace them as is still required by the national Constitution for placement of a national Senator.
9th: In 1916, President Wilson is reelected by the Electoral College but their election is required to be confirmed by the constitutionally set Senate; where the new Corp. U.S. only Senators were allowed to participate in the Electoral College vote confirmation the only authority that could possibly have been used for electoral confirmation was corporate only. Therefore, President Wilson was not confirmed into office for his second term as President of the United States of America and was only seated in the Corp. U.S. Presidential capacity. Therefore the original jurisdiction government's seats were vacated because the people didn't seat any original jurisdiction government officers. It is important to note here that President Wilson retained his capacity as Commander in Chief of the military. Many people wonder about this fact imagining that such a capacity is bound to the President of the nation; however, When John Adams was President he assigned George Washington to the capacity of Commander in Chief of the military in preparation for an impending war with France. During this period, Mr. Adams became quite concerned because Mr. Washington became quite ill and passed on his acting military authority through his lead General Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Adams was concerned that if war did break out Mr. Hamilton would use that authority to create a military dictatorship of the nation. Mr. Adams averted the war through diplomacy and the title of Commander in Chief was returned to him. (See: John Adams, by David McCullough, this book covers Mr. Adams concerns over this matter quite well. Mr. Adams was a fascinating man.)
10th: In 1917, Corp. U.S. enters W.W. I and passes their Trading with the Enemies Act.
11th: In 1933, Corp. U.S. is bankrupt, they force a banking holiday to exchange money backed Federal Reserve Notes with "legal tender” Federal Reserve Notes and the Trading with the Enemies Act is adjusted to recognize the people of the United States as enemies of Corp. U.S.
12th: Some time after 1935, you ask Social Security Administration for a relationship with their program. With the express purpose of generating Beneficiary funds to United States General Trust Fund (GTF) the Social Security Administration creates an entity with a name (that sounds like your name but is spelled with all capital letters) and an account number (Social Security number). They give you the Social Security card and let you know that the card does not belong to you but you are to hold it for them until they want it back. If you are willing to accept that responsibility over the card you activate the card by signing it, which gives you the ability to act as the fiduciary for the cards actual owner Corp. U.S. and you can use the card’s name and number to thus transact business relations for the card’s actual owner. You are also to note that though the card verifies its agency (you as the single person with authority to control the entity so created) it is not for use as identification. On review: notice the Social Security Administration was the creator of the entity, they offered you the opportunity to serve its Trustee capacity (by lending it actual consciousness and physical capacity), they gave you something (the card) that does not belong to you to hold in trust and they reserved the actual owner of the thing (Corp. U.S.) as the beneficiary of the entity—by definition, this only describes the creation and existence of a Trust. More importantly: the name they gave this Trust is not your name, the number they gave the Trust is not your number and your lending actual consciousness and physical capacity to this Trust’s Trustee capacity does not limit you or your capacity to separately act in your natural sovereign capacity in any way—what you do, when you do it and how you do it is still totally up to you.
13th: In 1944, under the Bretton Woods Agreement, Corp. U.S. is quit claimed to the International Monetary Fund, and becomes a foreign controlled private corporation.
14th: In 1968, at the National Governor's Conference in Lexington, Kentucky, the IMF leaders of the event proposed the dilemma the State governors were in for carrying out their business dealings in Federal Reserve Notes (foreign notes), which is forbidden in the national and State constitutions, alleging that if they did not do something to protect themselves the people would discover what had been done with their money and would likely to kill them all and start over. They suggested the States form corporations like Corp. U.S. and showed the advantages of the resultant uniform codes that could be created, which would allow better and more powerful control over the people, which thing the original jurisdiction governments of this nation had no capacity to do. Our Constitutions secure that the governments do not govern the people rather they govern themselves in accord with the limits of Law. The people govern themselves. Such is the foundational nature of our Constitutional Republic.
15th: By 1971, every State government in the union of States had formed such private corporations (Corp. State), in accord with the IMF admonition, and the people ceased to seat original jurisdiction government officials in their State government seats.
Now, having stated these historical facts, we ask you not to believe us, but rather prove these facts for yourself.
The Bottom Line: when you speak about these private foreign corporations remember that is what they are and stop calling them government.
Further, it is very important that we cease to attempt to fix them. It is far more important that we learn how to reseat our original jurisdiction government and spread the word about the truth. By reseating our State and national governments in their original jurisdiction nature, we gain the capacity to hold these private foreign corporations accountable. They owe us a lot of money, in fact they owe us more money than there is available in the world. In fact it is impossible for them to pay and that gives us the leverage we need to take back our nation and put things right.
1st: Martial Law is declared by President Lincoln on April 24th, 1863, with General Order No. 100; under martial law authority, Congress and President Lincoln institute continuous martial law by ordering the states (people) either conscribe troops and or provide money in support of the North or be recognized as enemies of the nation; this martial law Act of Congress is still in effect today. This martial law authority gives the President (with or without Congress) the dictatorial authority to do anything that can be done by government in accord with the Constitution of the United States of America. This conscription act remains in effect to this very day and is the foundation of Presidential Executive Orders authority; it was magnified in 1917 with The Trading with the Enemy Act (Public Law 65-91, 65th Congress, Session I, Chapters 105, 106, October 6, 1917). and again in 1933 with the Emergency War Powers Act, which is ratified and enhanced almost every year to this date by Congress. Today these Acts address the people of the United States themselves as their enemy.
2nd: The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 created a “municipal corporation” to govern the District of Columbia. Considering the fact that the municipal government itself was incorporated in 1808, an “Organic Act” (first Act) using the term “municipal corporation” in 1871 can only mean a private corporation owned by the municipality. Hereinafter we will call that private corporation, “Corp. U.S.” By consistent usage, Corp. U.S. trademarked the name, “United States Government” referring to themselves. The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 places Congress in control (like a corporate board) and gives the purpose of the act to form a governing body over the municipality; this allowed Congress to direct the business needs of the government under the existent martial law and provided them with corporate abilities they would not otherwise have. This was done under the constitutional authority for Congress to pass any law within the ten mile square of the District of Columbia.
3rd: In said Act, Corp. U.S. adopted their own constitution (United States Constitution), which was identical to the national Constitution (Constitution of the United States of America) except that it was missing the national constitution’s 13th Amendment and the national constitution's 14th, 15th and 16th amendments are respectively numbered 13th, 14th and 15th amendments in the Corp. U.S. Constitution. At this point take special notice and remember this Corp. U.S. method of adopting their own Constitution, they will add to it in the same manner in 1913.
4th: Corp. U.S. began to generate debts via bonds etc., which came due in 1912, but they could not pay their debts so the 7 families that bought up the bonds demanded payment and Corp. U.S. could not pay. Said families settled the debt for the payments of all of Corp. U.S.' assets and for all of the assets of the Treasury of the United States of America.
5th: As 1913 began, Corp. U.S. had no funds to carry out the necessary business needs of the government so they went to said families and asked if they could borrow some money. The families said no (Corp. U.S. had already demonstrated that they would not repay their debts in full). The families had foreseen this situation and had the year before finalized the creation of a private corporation of the name "Federal Reserve Bank". Corp. U.S. formed a relationship with the Federal Reserve Bank whereby they could transact their business via note rather than with money. Notice that this relationship was one made between two private corporations and did not involve government; that is where most people error in understanding the Federal Reserve Bank system—again it has no government relation at all. The private contracts that set the whole system up even recognize that if anything therein proposed is found illegal or impossible to perform it is excluded from the agreements and the remaining elements remain in full force and effect.
6th: Almost simultaneously with the last fact (also in 1913), Corp. U.S. adopts (as if ratified) their own 16th amendment. Tax protesters challenge the IRS tax collection system based on this fact, however when we remember that Corp. U.S. originally created their constitution by simply drafting it and adopting it; there is no difference between that adoption and this—such is the nature of corporate enactments—when the corporate board (Congress) tells the secretary to enter the amendment as ratified (even thought the States had not ratified it) the Se3cretary was instructed that the Representatives word alone was sufficient for ratification. You must also note, this amendment has nothing to do with our nation, with our people or with our national Constitution, which already had its own 16th amendment. The Supreme Court (in BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)) ruled the 16th amendment did nothing that was not already done other than to make plain and clear the right of the United States (Corp. U.S.) to tax corporations and government employees. We agree, considering that they were created under the authority of Corp. U.S.
7th: Next (also 1913) Corp. U.S., through Congress, adopts (as if ratified) its 17th amendment. This amendment is not only not ratified, it is not constitutional; the nation's Constitution forbids Congress from even discussing the matter of where Senators are elected, which is the subject matter of this amendment; therefore they cannot pass such and Act and then of their own volition, order it entered as ratified. According to the United States Supreme Court, for Congress to propose such an amendment they would first have to pass an amendment that gave them the authority to discuss the matter.
8th: Accordingly, in 1914, the Freshman class and all Senators that successfully ran for reelection in 1913 by popular vote were seated in Corp. U.S. Senate capacity only; their respective seats from their States remained vacant because neither the State Senates nor the State Governors appointed new Senators to replace them as is still required by the national Constitution for placement of a national Senator.
9th: In 1916, President Wilson is reelected by the Electoral College but their election is required to be confirmed by the constitutionally set Senate; where the new Corp. U.S. only Senators were allowed to participate in the Electoral College vote confirmation the only authority that could possibly have been used for electoral confirmation was corporate only. Therefore, President Wilson was not confirmed into office for his second term as President of the United States of America and was only seated in the Corp. U.S. Presidential capacity. Therefore the original jurisdiction government's seats were vacated because the people didn't seat any original jurisdiction government officers. It is important to note here that President Wilson retained his capacity as Commander in Chief of the military. Many people wonder about this fact imagining that such a capacity is bound to the President of the nation; however, When John Adams was President he assigned George Washington to the capacity of Commander in Chief of the military in preparation for an impending war with France. During this period, Mr. Adams became quite concerned because Mr. Washington became quite ill and passed on his acting military authority through his lead General Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Adams was concerned that if war did break out Mr. Hamilton would use that authority to create a military dictatorship of the nation. Mr. Adams averted the war through diplomacy and the title of Commander in Chief was returned to him. (See: John Adams, by David McCullough, this book covers Mr. Adams concerns over this matter quite well. Mr. Adams was a fascinating man.)
10th: In 1917, Corp. U.S. enters W.W. I and passes their Trading with the Enemies Act.
11th: In 1933, Corp. U.S. is bankrupt, they force a banking holiday to exchange money backed Federal Reserve Notes with "legal tender” Federal Reserve Notes and the Trading with the Enemies Act is adjusted to recognize the people of the United States as enemies of Corp. U.S.
12th: Some time after 1935, you ask Social Security Administration for a relationship with their program. With the express purpose of generating Beneficiary funds to United States General Trust Fund (GTF) the Social Security Administration creates an entity with a name (that sounds like your name but is spelled with all capital letters) and an account number (Social Security number). They give you the Social Security card and let you know that the card does not belong to you but you are to hold it for them until they want it back. If you are willing to accept that responsibility over the card you activate the card by signing it, which gives you the ability to act as the fiduciary for the cards actual owner Corp. U.S. and you can use the card’s name and number to thus transact business relations for the card’s actual owner. You are also to note that though the card verifies its agency (you as the single person with authority to control the entity so created) it is not for use as identification. On review: notice the Social Security Administration was the creator of the entity, they offered you the opportunity to serve its Trustee capacity (by lending it actual consciousness and physical capacity), they gave you something (the card) that does not belong to you to hold in trust and they reserved the actual owner of the thing (Corp. U.S.) as the beneficiary of the entity—by definition, this only describes the creation and existence of a Trust. More importantly: the name they gave this Trust is not your name, the number they gave the Trust is not your number and your lending actual consciousness and physical capacity to this Trust’s Trustee capacity does not limit you or your capacity to separately act in your natural sovereign capacity in any way—what you do, when you do it and how you do it is still totally up to you.
13th: In 1944, under the Bretton Woods Agreement, Corp. U.S. is quit claimed to the International Monetary Fund, and becomes a foreign controlled private corporation.
14th: In 1968, at the National Governor's Conference in Lexington, Kentucky, the IMF leaders of the event proposed the dilemma the State governors were in for carrying out their business dealings in Federal Reserve Notes (foreign notes), which is forbidden in the national and State constitutions, alleging that if they did not do something to protect themselves the people would discover what had been done with their money and would likely to kill them all and start over. They suggested the States form corporations like Corp. U.S. and showed the advantages of the resultant uniform codes that could be created, which would allow better and more powerful control over the people, which thing the original jurisdiction governments of this nation had no capacity to do. Our Constitutions secure that the governments do not govern the people rather they govern themselves in accord with the limits of Law. The people govern themselves. Such is the foundational nature of our Constitutional Republic.
15th: By 1971, every State government in the union of States had formed such private corporations (Corp. State), in accord with the IMF admonition, and the people ceased to seat original jurisdiction government officials in their State government seats.
Now, having stated these historical facts, we ask you not to believe us, but rather prove these facts for yourself.
The Bottom Line: when you speak about these private foreign corporations remember that is what they are and stop calling them government.
Further, it is very important that we cease to attempt to fix them. It is far more important that we learn how to reseat our original jurisdiction government and spread the word about the truth. By reseating our State and national governments in their original jurisdiction nature, we gain the capacity to hold these private foreign corporations accountable. They owe us a lot of money, in fact they owe us more money than there is available in the world. In fact it is impossible for them to pay and that gives us the leverage we need to take back our nation and put things right.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
WHY AMERICAN BABY BIRTH CERTIFICATES ARE REGISTERED WITH THE FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
WHY AMERICAN BABY BIRTH CERTIFICATES ARE REGISTERED WITH THE FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Did you know, that when you were born, when your children were born, and your grandchildren, that a $1,000,000.00 TDA (Treasury Direct Account) was created for that child by the federal Department of Commerce, the birth certificates magically becoming ‘securities’?
What does the birth of a baby have to do with federal securities and commerce? Does the very question give you feelings of foreboding?
It doesn’t seem rational. But read on and it will become nauseatingly, piercingly clear exactly what babies have to do with federal securities and commerce.
When a child is born, the hospital sends their original, not a copy, of the record of live birth to the "State Bureau of Vital Statistics," sometimes called the "Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services" (HRS). Each STATE is required to supply the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT with birth, death, and health statistics. The STATE agency that receives the original record of live birth keeps it and then issues another Birth Certificate in the corrupted, all-caps version of the baby’s true name, i.e. JAMES WILBUR SMITH instead of James Wilbur Smith.
Once a state has registered a birth document with the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Department of Commerce notifies the Treasury Department, which takes out a loan from the Federal Reserve. The Treasury uses the loan money to purchase a bond (the Fed holds a purchase money security interest in the bond) from the Department of Commerce, which invests the sale proceeds in the stock or bond market. The Treasury Department then issues Treasury securities in the form of Treasury Bonds, Notes, and Bills using the bonds as surety for the new securities. This cycle of wealth-creation is based entirely on the presumed future tax revenues to be collected from the ‘legal person’ over their working lifetime whose name appears on the Birth Certificate. This means that the bankrupt, corporate U.S. can guarantee to the purchasers of their securities the lifetime labor and tax revenues of every baby ‘citizen of the United States’ with a Birth Certificate as collateral for payment. This device is initiated simply by converting the lawful, true name of the child into a legal, all-caps juristic name of a person. Dubuque rei potissinia pars prineipium est. The principal part of everything is in the beginning. (Well begun is half done.)
THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT -actually the elected and appointed administrators of government -took (and still do, to this day) certified copies of all our birth certificates and placed them in the United States Department of Commerce ... as registered securities. These securities, each of which carries an estimated $1,000,000 (one million) dollar value, have been (and still are) circulated around the world as collateral for loans, entries on the asset side of ledgers, etc., just like any other security. There's just one little problem -- we didn't authorize it. Hell, we’re never even told about it. And the 'Federal' 'Reserve' notes (the dollar bills in your wallets) circulate, backed by nothing but 'the full faith and credit' of The People of The United States of America.
We are not told that THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT is not our Constitutional government of original jurisdiction - it is a trademark of a corporation named "The District of Columbia" formed in 1871. The corporation "The District of Columbia" was created by the Congress, which had Constitutional authority to pass any law within the ten-mile square of the District of Columbia, a municipality set up in 1808 to quarter The United States of America government of original jurisdiction.
Now we have here, a corporation named "The District of Columbia" which trademarked the names “THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT”, "United States”, "U.S.”, "U.S.A.”, "USA”, and "America”. Why did the government of The United States of America's municipality create a private corporation?
Get ready, this is gonna be a hell of a ride.
On the Fourth of July, 1776, the 13 independent States of North America united in a Congress, through their plenipotentiary delegates and signed the Declaration of Independence. As separate States, united in their cause for freedom from tyranny, they went to war as a nation. For the first time these unbound States stood together to fight a war, without a single document to bind them as a nation. At the cause of defending their Liberty, they together declared their Independence; knowing they would likely give their all, even if they could survive—but their chances of survival were slim..
But what is Liberty? What did it mean? What does it mean now? What is this Independence they fought and gave their all for?
We are taught that for hundreds of years Great Britain thought of this nation simply as one of their colonies and during that time, it grew to become one of their most lucratively productive assets.
But the people that lived here were, for the most part, independent land patent secured self-governed landowners. In other words, they were independent sovereign landowners. Though the Magna Carta had little effect on the people in Great Britain (it only deals with sovereign rights), the people here recognized it as descriptive of their sovereign rights. Respectively, their land patents secured their sovereign Title to the Land itself, which permanently secured their sovereign right to self-government. Still, the people remained in debt to Great Britain, which debt was used to control both the people and the states they formed. Through debt bound contracts, Great Britain was able to glean 50% of the people’s production from the land. As the people formed governments, those governments also borrowed from Great Britain and British control, by debt bound contracts, remained elemental to American existence.
The French American War threatened to end Great Britain’s commerce with America. Thus, England sent troops to defend the Americans (and their contracts). With British support, France lost the French American war; but, England separately remained at war with France and so retained troops in America to assure the French would not return. Great Britain had very few forts here so to house their troops they began to compel the people to quarter British troops in their homes. That caused the necessity for compelling the people to relinquish their arms to British quartermasters to avoid armed hostilities between troops and disgruntled “colonists”. The troops that remained progressively violated the people’s rights until the people would take no more. The people began to believe war was immanent so they secretly began to stockpile supplies hidden from British supervision.
Meanwhile, back in England, the people were rebelling against high tax burden set to pay for the war in America, and the English Parliament and King were looking for ways to shift the burden on the American people. The problem was, Great Britain had no right to rule here and could only lawfully control the people here in accord with the contracts they had already established. But, that did not stop them from trying many ways of shifting the tax burden to the American people. In 1765, they tried the to impose a “Stamp Act” to impose a tax on many goods; but, the American people had no representation in the British Parliament, none of the members of that Parliament were land owners and 80% of the Americans owned over 50 acres of land—thus, the people were outraged and regularly hijacked and destroyed the stamps before they could be put to use. In 1766, the Stamp Act was repealed; but Parliament then passed the “Declaratory Act”, declaring they had the right to enact laws for the “13 colonies” in America. Then in 1767, Parliament passed the “Townsend Acts”, which required taxes on several specific products like paper, paint, glass and tea. Parliament thought the American people would accept this Act because it reduced the number of products taxed and proposed to remove the expense of certain government officials from the people. The people saw it as a formal attempt to take away their right to self-government. This caused hot rebellion against Great Britain’s attempted usurpation. In 1768, Great Britain responded by sending more troops to maintain the peace (and to secure control). In Boston (British headquarters city), on March 5th, 1770, some of the people were harassing British soldiers and began throwing snowballs; fray broke out and the soldiers shot and killed five people. Great Britain removed the soldiers to try them in England where they were acquitted; thus, causing more friction among the American people. The most famous of the British failures to implement taxes took place when they imposed the Tea Act, which doubled sales tax on tea, etc. (from 3% to 6%); rather than paying the increased tax, some “colonists” threw 342 cases of tea into the Boston Harbor, historically preserving the event as the Boston Tea Party.
In response, the British Parliament enacted what the colonist dubbed, “The Intolerable Acts”. Accordingly, the independent states united to form their “First Continental Congress”, which convened in Philadelphia in September of 1774.
On April 18th, 1775, Paul Revere and William Dawes became famous for their night ride to warn the people that the British were marching on Concord, where they heard they could capture a cache of stockpiled stores and several patriot leaders including Sam Adams and John Hancock.
When the British troops arrived in Lexington, hostilities began and the British troops opened fire on the people’s militia who had formed to defend the town—thus, began the “War of Independence”. The American’s won that battle with a decisive victory routing the British troops at incredible odds.
On June 15th, The Continental Congress appointed George Washington as the commander in chief of the Continental army and the formal defense of America began with an organized army of regular soldiers made up from every state.
On June 17th, 1775, the battle of Bunker Hill and Breed Hill was fought with a decisive victory for the American Militia; however, the British actually won the battle when the Militia ran out of ammunition and had to retreat.
These two American victories caused King George to rethink his war strategy; and, on March 17th, 1776, under the king’s order, General William Howe evacuated his command from Boston and moved to New York to engage George Washington and the Continental army. As support, King George assembled an Armada of over 400 ships of the line and sent them to invade the newly united states in America, at New York.
King George’s invasion was the last straw. On July 4th, 1776, the Continental Congress adopted the “Declaration of Independence”, published it, sent it to the King George and began its delivery to the troops.
To get into this history and understand what it was like to be a alive then, read Prelude to Glory, by Ron Carter. This 8 volume historical novel brings our history to life. Your passion for our nation will awaken with understanding while you follow these people from the first signs of war through the setting of the Constitution. Valley Forge and many other landmarks of these incredible patriots come to life and finally you will awaken to your rights and what it took to secure them.
From March 1, 1781, to June 21, 1788, The Articles of Confederation were in force as the first constitution of The United States of America.
When the War was over they formed a new nation with a foundational document, The Articles of Confederation, that document recognized this nation as a nation made up of independent sovereign united States, and gave the name to the new nation as: “The United States of America”.
Many of the people of this new nation felt that it was wrong to leave England. Sure there were rights violations but those were livable and their future was a certainty as an English Colony. Now that they were on their own nothing at all was sure.
Over the next ten years conditions in this country continually got worse. The individual States gave little regard to any other State and paid nearly no attention at all to the central government. After ten years of independence from England conditions were far worse than they had ever been under England’s rule and protection. Many wanted government officials to go back to England and beg the King to take us back, and they almost did. Again, in the Prelude to Glory: Vol. 7: The Impending Storm you’ll discover the starvation and destitution the Articles of Confederation left our country in after the war and the necessity of our Constitution to save the nation. It was incredible!
“To form a more perfect Union”Allowing Great Britain to retake the nation was considered too severe without first attempting to resolve the problems of this new nation by getting the States to sit down and work out the problems with the Articles of Confederation. That meeting was finally arranged and each of the Sovereign States gave authority to a few men, Deputies, to sit in convention, and review the present form of government as set in the Articles so as to eliminate its limitations, give sufficient power to the central government to function while still preserving the liberty of the People and autonomy of the States. A trust indenture was formed, it simply began as follows:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”Continuing with seven Articles and concluding with the signatures of the representative of the twelve states present at the convention. Once agreed to and signed by the individual State’s representatives at the convention, the Trust was formed.
The Trust indenture, with the intent and authority of the people created a “Constitutional Republic” form of government in trust.
Though the document had no header its leading paragraph named it this: “Constitution for the United States of America”.
On, September 17th, 1787, it was resolved by the Convention to take the Trust to the individual States for ratification.
The States conditionally turned the Trust down because it removed their sovereignty and didn’t secure man’s God given inherent rights, without which the States would not give up their sovereignty to support the Constitution.
Remember, these individual States were recognized as individual Sovereign States in the Articles of Confederation. That was the principle error with the Articles of Confederation; there was no accountability or control over the individual States—there was no unity. Without accountability whoever was in power simply ignored the central government and moved forward however they saw fit, in violation of individual rights, or not, literally however they saw fit. In essence, they were each literally absolutely powerful kingdoms.
It was obvious that if something wasn’t done to unite the States with a more perfect Union they would be destroyed from within or without. So when offered the Constitutional Republic, the individual sovereign States leaders could see they would no longer be sovereign if they accepted it—but they would be destroyed if they didn’t.
Not much of a choice, but the war with England ended only a little over ten years earlier and they couldn’t go back, so they demanded that if they were to give up their sovereignty, the people’s rights must be preserved from the central government. Thus, they conditionally refused the Trust until the “Bill of Rights” was added.
Therefore, the Constitution was first created to form a Trust commonly known as the government of The United States of America. Government officials were set up within the Trust as Trustees with specific defined responsibilities and functions.
The People were made beneficiaries of the Trust and when any government official takes office he or she is required to swear or affirm an oath of allegiance [make a contract with the people to uphold the Constitution].
Remember, at this point the government was already created in trust, by the signed Constitution and George Washington was already positioned as its President, yet the Trust had nobody sitting in the other offices of government and the States were not willing to support it (give up their sovereignty) and authorize its officers to function with control over them unless the people’s rights and the State’s rights were secured.
The Deputies reconvened as the First Constitutional Convention and went back to work to draft the requested, Bill of Rights, which were later provided as the First Twelve Amendments to The Constitution of the United States of America (only ten were ratified), a document that was created to bind officers in an Oath to uphold the Trust of the people and secure the peoples rights.
Then The Constitution for the United States of America (still signed and unchanged from its original version as first presented to the states), along with the “Bill of Rights” as the first ten amendments to The Constitution of the United States of America, were returned to the individual States and were ratified by each of those States and returned to the Constitutional Convention where the new government was made fully effective and put in operation on or after, December 15th, 1791, the “Effective date” of The Constitution of the United States of America.
Now let’s go back and again review the documents created in the process by name. (Names are about to become very important when we go to the next step and begin to follow the money.)
Here’s what happened step by step:First: There was the Trust, named within its own first paragraph as this, “Constitution for the United States of America”. Remember this document is a Trust indenture; it created a Trust called “the government of The United States of America”. This document was accepted and signed by all of the Deputies. The signed Constitution created the government and under the capacity therein granted to Senators the Delegates seated George Washington as President of that government.
Second: The Trust was sent out for ratification of the individual States (because they had not yet agreed to give up their sovereignty).
Third: The individual States conditionally declined requiring a Bill of Rights limitation on the Constitution to make it acceptable.
Fourth: The First Constitutional Convention sat and generated the Bill of Rights (a set of supreme laws that limit government). The wording of the Bill recognized it as “Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America”; presupposing that the Constitution already existed as set. Note: they did not regenerate the Constitution; it was already signed and accepted by each of the State’s representatives and the Constitutional Republic was already in force; they simply added the Bill of Rights so the Republic would forever remain of, by, and for the people.
Fifth: The individual States were given the original Constitution with the attached “Bill of Rights” under the name “Constitution of the United States of America” and all of the States accepted and ratified the documents.
Sixth: With the ratification of the Trust and its “Bill of Rights”, the government was accepted as formed, in trust, yet still, other than George Washington, there were no officers in the seats of the government. [It’s very important for us to notice this status of the government.**]
Seventh: The Constitutional Convention again sat to perform their final acts as the Creator of the Trust. They appointed officials to sit in the primary seats of the newly formed Constitutional Republic and to so serve until an election could be held.
Eighth: Those officials now appointed could not take office until they each individually first swore an Oath of Office stating they would uphold the, Constitution of the United States of America. Again it is very important to notice the name used in the Bill or Rights and now used for this “contract” with the officers and agencies serving under Oath to obey and uphold the: Constitution of the United States of America, not, “for”, but ”of”.
Note: It’s important to note here that we are indeed talking about two different documents. The First, the, Constitution for the United States of America, is a Trust and the Second, the, Constitution of the United States of America, is a contract between the officers of government and the beneficiaries of the Trust.
After the Constitution was in place, and elections were held ratifying George Washington as President things went fairly well until the Civil War.
In 1863, Lincoln instituted martial law and ordered that the States either conscribe troops and provide money in support of the North or be recognized as and enemy of the nation; this martial law Act of Congress is still in effect today—what it means is that the President has dictatorial authority to do anything that can be done by the government in accord with the Constitution of the United States of America. This martial law authority is still in effect to this day and this Act was the foundation of today’s Presidential Executive Orders.
By 1868 the war was over and the government had a gigantic problem. Until that time Congressmen were equally, collectively and severably liable for any official acts they performed outside of their constitutional limitations. It was much like a General Partnership. In the wake of the war martial law was necessarily enforced in the South and carpetbaggers were sent down to "help adjust property ownership problems” after the war. Many great atrocities were committed making the vulnerability to lawsuit unbearable. It was considered that, in the interest of better handling the business interests and needs of government, the government should form a corporation, because from the protection of such a corporation they could continue to do what they felt was necessary to reunite the Union. To accomplish this, under the Constitution’s allowance for Congress to pass (and enforce) any law within the 10 mile square of Washington, D.C., they passed The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 (Chapter 62, 16 Statutes at Large, 419).
Corp. USAUnder The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 a private corporation named, ”The District of Columbia”, was formed. It trademarked the names ”THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT”, ”United States”, ”U.S.”, ”U.S.A.”, ”USA”, and ”America”. It should be noted that this corporation was not simply a reformation of the municipality as its Organic Act was chartered in 1808. Without amending that municipality’s charter, this 1871 Act marked the creation of a new private corporation known as, "The District of Columbia” (hereinafter ”Corp. U.S.”) owned and operated by the actual government for the purpose of carrying out the business needs of the government under martial law. This was done under the constitutional authority for Congress to pass any law within the ten mile square of Washington, District of Columbia. In said, Act Corp. U.S. adopted their own constitution the (United States Constitution), which was identical to the national Constitution (Constitution of the United States of America) except that it was missing the national Constitution’s 13th Article of Amendment and the national Constitution’s 14th, 15th and 16th Articles of Amendment are respectively numbered 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments in their constitution.
Corp. U.S. was not well received by the people so Congress revised the Act in 1874 and finalized it in 1878.
Corp. U.S. began issuing bonds to cover the expenses of running government. By 1912 there was more bond debt due than there was money in the Treasury to pay and the debt was called.
Seven very powerful families had been buying up the bonds and in 1912 they demanded their timely redemption. When Corp. U.S. couldn’t come up with the money due, its owner (the actual government) was obligated to pay. The Treasury of the United States of America did not have sufficient funds to cover the bonds either but the seven families accepted all of the assets of the nation’s Treasury along with all of the assets of Corp. U.S.’ Treasury as a settlement of the debt saving the nation from bankruptcy.
By 1913 there was still no money for operating the government/corporation, and if Corp. U.S. didn’t do something the people would revolt against them, so Corp. U.S. went to those seven very powerful families and asked if they could borrow money from them.
The Federal Reserve BankThe heads of those families refused to loan Corp. U.S. any money because Corp. U.S. had already proven that it would not pay its debts back in full. They did however make arrangements and provisions to issue notes (Federal Reserve Notes) like letters of credit while they secured the notes for redemption with real money. On Jekyll Island in 1913 the Federal Reserve Bank privately agreed to so fund Corp. U.S. in their endeavors. Such an action would have been a gigantic violation of law if the government tried such a thing, but there is no law against private corporations making such arrangements.
The real problem is in the name. How does one tell the difference between a corporation going by the name, "THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT”, and the government of the Unites States of America?
What’s worse, how do you tell the difference between the ”United States” [a Trust and the body of government that represents the Trust, as Trustees], and the ”United States” a trademark name for, "The District of Columbia” [a private corporation]?
The answer is simple, you can’t unless you can tell by the context of what’s being done.
The problem gets even larger when you take into consideration the fact that the officers of government are also the officers of the corporation. They were simultaneously appointed or elected into their offices, both in the corporation and in the government at the same time. In virtually every way the name of their offices and their responsibilities as corporate officials and as government officers were coincidental between 1871 and 1913.
There was no conflict in interest because the Corp. U.S.’ purpose was to fulfill the business needs of the actual government.
I’m not going to here go into all of the details and ramifications of the arrangements between Corp. U.S. and the Federal Reserve Bank. The simple fact is: Where the government couldn’t lawfully be involved with the Federal Reserve Bank, the corporation can be.
Vacating the seats of GovernmentUnder all of the media coverage of the Federal Reserve Bank Act, Corp. U.S. passes and adopts (as if ratified) their own 16th Amendment. Remember, this amendment has nothing to do with our nation, with our people or with our national Constitution, which already had its own 16th Article of Amendment as of 1870. The Supreme Court ruled that Corp. U.S.’ 16th Amendment did nothing that was not already done other than to make plain and clear the right of the United States (Corp. U.S.) to tax corporations. We agree, considering that they were obviously created only under the authority of Corp. U.S. Two months later Corp. U.S.’ Congress entered their 17th Amendment as ratified. Again in the corporate ratification pattern of the Corp. U.S. 16th amendment was followed with actual State ratification. This amendment is not even constitutional; the Constitution forbids Congress from even discussing the matter of where Senators are elected. For our national Congress to pass such an Amendment they would first have to Amend the Constitution to allow their discussion of the matter. Either way the result is that in Corp. U.S. their corporate officials known as Senators would thereafter be elected by a popular vote of their contracted voting public, while in the actual government (hereinafter ”original jurisdiction government”) Senators would continue to be appointed by the State’s Legislature or by the State’s Governor. In other words, the Corp. U.S. seats and the original jurisdiction government seats would not thereafter be seated by the same individual.
In 1914, the Freshman class and all Senators that successfully ran for reelection in 1913 by popular vote are seated in Corp. U.S. capacity only and the original jurisdiction Senate seat was vacated, because the States failed to appoint new Senators (after all no law compels them to).
In 1916, President Wilson is reelected by the Electoral College but their election is required to be confirmed by the constitutionally set Senate; where the new Corp. U.S. only Senators were allowed to participate in the Electoral College vote confirmation the only authority that could possibly have been used for electoral confirmation was corporate only. Therefore, President Wilson was not confirmed into office for his second term as President of the United States of America and was only seated in the Corp. U.S. Presidential capacity. Therefore the original jurisdiction government’s seats were vacated because the people didn’t seat any original jurisdiction government officers.
In 1917, Corp. U.S. enters W.W.I and passes their Trading with the Enemies Act.
In 1933, Corp. U.S. went bankrupt and the States agreed to support their resolution. In keeping with the bankruptcy, the Corp. U.S. Congress adjusted their Trading with the Enemies Act with their Emergency War Powers Act, which recognized the people of the United States of America are enemies of Corp. U.S.
No Elections since 1913Therefore there was no election of officers of the government of the United States of America. And all of America was none the wiser. The government was still there and the Constitution was still alive and well and living in Washington, D.C. but once again** there was nobody sitting in the seats of the officers of government; just like it was when the founding fathers signed the Constitution but the States had not ratified it, the government existed but no one was seated in office.
There hasn’t been an Election since, and there won’t be one until America once again wakes up.
This is fantastic, I know, but look at the facts! This is the only solution that makes sense and fits the facts.
The U.N., IMF, & World BankSo we jump from 1913 and the setting of the Federal Reserve Bank as the financier of Corp. U.S. to 1944 and W.W.II. The war was continuing and the United States was not fairing too well until the formation of The Bretton Woods Agreements and their new players—”The International Monetary Fund” (a.k.a. the ”Fund”, hereinafter ”IMF”), and ”The World Bank for Reconstruction and Development” (a.k.a. the ”Bank”, hereinafter ”World Bank”). Make sure you’re sitting down for this one.
The United States Code (USC) Title 22 § 286 reads:
”§ 286. Acceptance of membership by the United States in International Monetary Fund.”The President is hereby authorized to accept membership for the United States in the International Monetary Fund (hereinafter referred to as the ”Fund”), and in the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (hereinafter referred to as the ”Bank”), provided for by the Articles of Agreement of the Fund and the Articles of Agreement of the Bank as set forth in the Final Act of the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference dated July 22, 1944, and deposited in the archives of the Department of State. (July 31, 1945, ch. 339, § 2, 59 Stat. 512.) Short titles: … May be cited as the ‘Bretton Woods Agreements Act’.”Other provisions:Par value modification. For the Congressional direction that the Secretary of the Treasury maintain the value in terms of gold of the Inter-American Development Bank’s holdings of United States dollars following the establishment of a par value of the dollar at $38 for a fine troy ounce of gold pursuant to the Par Value Modification Act and for the authorization of the appropriations necessary to provide such maintenance of value, see 31 USC § 449a.” (accents in red added).
[It should be noted that recently, to cover-up the Bretton Woods Agreements (hereinafter ”BWA”) control and the quitclaim of the United States Government to the IMF, the United States Congress abolished the references in the USC referring to the BWA. Other than removing such references that abolishment had no effect on the BWA.]
The Quit Claim DeedThe agreement further transfers the assets of the United States Treasury to the IMF by stating words to the effect of: ‘the United States Treasury is now the Individual Drawing account of the IMF’.
Think about it.“The President is hereby authorized to accept membership for the United States in the IMF”
The President is authorized by whom? By Congress? No. According to the Act the authorization came from, ”the Articles of Agreement of the Fund and the Articles of Agreement of the Bank as set forth in the Final Act of the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference dated July 22, 1944”, a.k.a. The Bretton Woods Agreement’s final act.
Even if Congress could have authorized such a thing, where would they get the authority to so do? Certainly not from the Constitution, and Congress can’t lawfully do anything the Constitution doesn’t authorize them to do. Even under the President’s dictatorial authority of martial law, the President cannot lawfully do anything not authorized in the Constitution.
The Constitution plainly states: ”The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Ninth amendment; and, ”The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Tenth Amendment
Further this joining in the IMF is obviously an international agreement; and, any good dictionary will define, ”an agreement between nations” as a, ”Treaty”. The constitution is very specific on how treaties are to be engaged in with this nation — First, the President signs the treaty; and Second, the Senate ratifies his signature with a two-thirds majority vote. That didn’t happen here.
So if the right wasn’t given in the Constitution, Congress can’t take it and give it to the President. This act itself states that the alleged authorization came from the “ Final Act of the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference” instead of from Congress.
Now, hold on a second here. There are too many things going on here that can’t be. Too many conflicts. Even in a corrupt government they’d never get away with it.
I was watching Star Trek one time when Spock explained a logical solution to an identity problem like this, ‘When you examine the solutions and you discover what cannot be, the solution can only be whatever is left.’
That’s the problem here, in Law, it cannot be what it seems to be, yet it is. The United States of America cannot be a member in the IMF, and the Treasury of the United States of America cannot be turned over to a foreign bank’s control. The only thing left is they must be talking about Corp. U.S. which was quit claimed to the IMF under the Bretton Woods Agreement as a settlement of W.W.II; that makes Corp. U.S. a private foreign corporation. We can find nothing that says a corporation cannot quit claim itself to another owner, foreign or otherwise.
Now think about it. And, this time instead of thinking the government did it [because they couldn’t have], think about Corp. U.S. OK. In that case where it says, “The President is hereby authorized to accept membership for the United States”, “United States” as used here can only mean be the trademark name for the corporation known as, “The District of Columbia” in other words the corporation formed in 1871, and not the government.
Want further confirmation? OK. In the “Other provisions:” section it talks about, “the Secretary of Treasury”, which is an officer of the corporation only. That position does not exist in the national government. The relatively equivalent position in national government is, “the Treasurer of the United States of America” and that seat was vacated by an Act of Congress in 1920.
As a matter of fact when you review the whole document, Title 22 § 286, and the underlying “Bretton Woods Agreement”, you’ll find these elements.
One — Corp. U.S.’ signs the Bretton Woods Agreements (treaty) and Congress gives Title 22 § 286 the short title of Bretton Woods Agreement Act.
Two — In said Agreement, Congress Grants to the IMF the “United States Treasury” as, “The individual drawing account” for the IMF.
Three — “The President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint a governor of the Fund who shall serve as a governor of the Bank” USC 22 § 286a.
The person the President chose as Governor of the World Bank and IMF is Corp. U.S.’ Secretary of the Treasury.
The elements of a Quit Claim Deed are: there must be a Grantor, a Grantee, and some thing, asset or right must be granted.
In this case the thing being granted is a corporation known as, “The District of Columbia”, trademark names, THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, United States, U.S., USA, America, etc.; its assets are its Treasury (The United States Treasury), and its purpose is to carry out the business needs of the national government of United States of America. Up until the Bretton Woods Agreement, the owner of Corp. U.S. was the United States of America, the actual government; thereafter it was the IMF. The Treasury of the corporation was granted by Grantor, the government of the United States of America (Congress and the President) to the Grantee, the IMF.
Therefore USC Title 22 § 286 exemplifies the Quit Claim Deed of Corp. U.S. from The United States of America to the IMF, which is owned and controlled by the Great Britain’s Bank of International Settlements. Up to the point of the quit claim deed, there was allegedly no conflict in interests between Corp. U.S. and its owner the national government of the United States of America, but after the quit claim deed, with the new owner being foreign and having foreign interests, there is a gigantic conflict in interests.
Upon review of these actions, as Spock would say, that is the only solution left when you remove all other options.
The States join Corp. U.S.Starting around 1962 and continuing through 1968. Corp. U.S. went to the States and pointed out to them that their own constitutions forbid them from participating in foreign currencies and/or foreign loans, foreign bonds, etc., and yet they were dealing in the foreign note system of Federal Reserve Notes. They were warned that if the people became aware of this they could imagine a scene similar to that of the Magna Carta signing where the Lords held a sword to the King’s head and said sign or we’ll get a new king.
The king signed, as did the States. One by one, they organized private corporations as sub-corps. to Corp. U.S.
For example, Colorado rewrote Colorado’s Constitution, revised their Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS), and enacted CRS Title 24 as the “Administrative Organization Act of 1968” restructuring its laws in 1968. Said Title 24 is the new corporate charter for, “THE STATE OF COLORADO” which is Corp. U.S. possession.
By 1972 every State in the Union had done the same thing.
The California Republic, formed “THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA”; The Republic of Texas formed “THE STATE OF TEXAS”; The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, formed “THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA”; and so it went, until each and every State had formed a private corporation of a name like “THE STATE OF _______”, where the blank is a common name for the State. As people registered to vote with these corporations they participated in their elections of corporate officials and bonded debts; they also stopped electing original jurisdiction State government officials, thus unknowingly vacating their actual State governments. http://www.teamlaw.org/
Did you know, that when you were born, when your children were born, and your grandchildren, that a $1,000,000.00 TDA (Treasury Direct Account) was created for that child by the federal Department of Commerce, the birth certificates magically becoming ‘securities’?
What does the birth of a baby have to do with federal securities and commerce? Does the very question give you feelings of foreboding?
It doesn’t seem rational. But read on and it will become nauseatingly, piercingly clear exactly what babies have to do with federal securities and commerce.
When a child is born, the hospital sends their original, not a copy, of the record of live birth to the "State Bureau of Vital Statistics," sometimes called the "Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services" (HRS). Each STATE is required to supply the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT with birth, death, and health statistics. The STATE agency that receives the original record of live birth keeps it and then issues another Birth Certificate in the corrupted, all-caps version of the baby’s true name, i.e. JAMES WILBUR SMITH instead of James Wilbur Smith.
Once a state has registered a birth document with the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Department of Commerce notifies the Treasury Department, which takes out a loan from the Federal Reserve. The Treasury uses the loan money to purchase a bond (the Fed holds a purchase money security interest in the bond) from the Department of Commerce, which invests the sale proceeds in the stock or bond market. The Treasury Department then issues Treasury securities in the form of Treasury Bonds, Notes, and Bills using the bonds as surety for the new securities. This cycle of wealth-creation is based entirely on the presumed future tax revenues to be collected from the ‘legal person’ over their working lifetime whose name appears on the Birth Certificate. This means that the bankrupt, corporate U.S. can guarantee to the purchasers of their securities the lifetime labor and tax revenues of every baby ‘citizen of the United States’ with a Birth Certificate as collateral for payment. This device is initiated simply by converting the lawful, true name of the child into a legal, all-caps juristic name of a person. Dubuque rei potissinia pars prineipium est. The principal part of everything is in the beginning. (Well begun is half done.)
THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT -actually the elected and appointed administrators of government -took (and still do, to this day) certified copies of all our birth certificates and placed them in the United States Department of Commerce ... as registered securities. These securities, each of which carries an estimated $1,000,000 (one million) dollar value, have been (and still are) circulated around the world as collateral for loans, entries on the asset side of ledgers, etc., just like any other security. There's just one little problem -- we didn't authorize it. Hell, we’re never even told about it. And the 'Federal' 'Reserve' notes (the dollar bills in your wallets) circulate, backed by nothing but 'the full faith and credit' of The People of The United States of America.
We are not told that THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT is not our Constitutional government of original jurisdiction - it is a trademark of a corporation named "The District of Columbia" formed in 1871. The corporation "The District of Columbia" was created by the Congress, which had Constitutional authority to pass any law within the ten-mile square of the District of Columbia, a municipality set up in 1808 to quarter The United States of America government of original jurisdiction.
Now we have here, a corporation named "The District of Columbia" which trademarked the names “THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT”, "United States”, "U.S.”, "U.S.A.”, "USA”, and "America”. Why did the government of The United States of America's municipality create a private corporation?
Get ready, this is gonna be a hell of a ride.
On the Fourth of July, 1776, the 13 independent States of North America united in a Congress, through their plenipotentiary delegates and signed the Declaration of Independence. As separate States, united in their cause for freedom from tyranny, they went to war as a nation. For the first time these unbound States stood together to fight a war, without a single document to bind them as a nation. At the cause of defending their Liberty, they together declared their Independence; knowing they would likely give their all, even if they could survive—but their chances of survival were slim..
But what is Liberty? What did it mean? What does it mean now? What is this Independence they fought and gave their all for?
We are taught that for hundreds of years Great Britain thought of this nation simply as one of their colonies and during that time, it grew to become one of their most lucratively productive assets.
But the people that lived here were, for the most part, independent land patent secured self-governed landowners. In other words, they were independent sovereign landowners. Though the Magna Carta had little effect on the people in Great Britain (it only deals with sovereign rights), the people here recognized it as descriptive of their sovereign rights. Respectively, their land patents secured their sovereign Title to the Land itself, which permanently secured their sovereign right to self-government. Still, the people remained in debt to Great Britain, which debt was used to control both the people and the states they formed. Through debt bound contracts, Great Britain was able to glean 50% of the people’s production from the land. As the people formed governments, those governments also borrowed from Great Britain and British control, by debt bound contracts, remained elemental to American existence.
The French American War threatened to end Great Britain’s commerce with America. Thus, England sent troops to defend the Americans (and their contracts). With British support, France lost the French American war; but, England separately remained at war with France and so retained troops in America to assure the French would not return. Great Britain had very few forts here so to house their troops they began to compel the people to quarter British troops in their homes. That caused the necessity for compelling the people to relinquish their arms to British quartermasters to avoid armed hostilities between troops and disgruntled “colonists”. The troops that remained progressively violated the people’s rights until the people would take no more. The people began to believe war was immanent so they secretly began to stockpile supplies hidden from British supervision.
Meanwhile, back in England, the people were rebelling against high tax burden set to pay for the war in America, and the English Parliament and King were looking for ways to shift the burden on the American people. The problem was, Great Britain had no right to rule here and could only lawfully control the people here in accord with the contracts they had already established. But, that did not stop them from trying many ways of shifting the tax burden to the American people. In 1765, they tried the to impose a “Stamp Act” to impose a tax on many goods; but, the American people had no representation in the British Parliament, none of the members of that Parliament were land owners and 80% of the Americans owned over 50 acres of land—thus, the people were outraged and regularly hijacked and destroyed the stamps before they could be put to use. In 1766, the Stamp Act was repealed; but Parliament then passed the “Declaratory Act”, declaring they had the right to enact laws for the “13 colonies” in America. Then in 1767, Parliament passed the “Townsend Acts”, which required taxes on several specific products like paper, paint, glass and tea. Parliament thought the American people would accept this Act because it reduced the number of products taxed and proposed to remove the expense of certain government officials from the people. The people saw it as a formal attempt to take away their right to self-government. This caused hot rebellion against Great Britain’s attempted usurpation. In 1768, Great Britain responded by sending more troops to maintain the peace (and to secure control). In Boston (British headquarters city), on March 5th, 1770, some of the people were harassing British soldiers and began throwing snowballs; fray broke out and the soldiers shot and killed five people. Great Britain removed the soldiers to try them in England where they were acquitted; thus, causing more friction among the American people. The most famous of the British failures to implement taxes took place when they imposed the Tea Act, which doubled sales tax on tea, etc. (from 3% to 6%); rather than paying the increased tax, some “colonists” threw 342 cases of tea into the Boston Harbor, historically preserving the event as the Boston Tea Party.
In response, the British Parliament enacted what the colonist dubbed, “The Intolerable Acts”. Accordingly, the independent states united to form their “First Continental Congress”, which convened in Philadelphia in September of 1774.
On April 18th, 1775, Paul Revere and William Dawes became famous for their night ride to warn the people that the British were marching on Concord, where they heard they could capture a cache of stockpiled stores and several patriot leaders including Sam Adams and John Hancock.
When the British troops arrived in Lexington, hostilities began and the British troops opened fire on the people’s militia who had formed to defend the town—thus, began the “War of Independence”. The American’s won that battle with a decisive victory routing the British troops at incredible odds.
On June 15th, The Continental Congress appointed George Washington as the commander in chief of the Continental army and the formal defense of America began with an organized army of regular soldiers made up from every state.
On June 17th, 1775, the battle of Bunker Hill and Breed Hill was fought with a decisive victory for the American Militia; however, the British actually won the battle when the Militia ran out of ammunition and had to retreat.
These two American victories caused King George to rethink his war strategy; and, on March 17th, 1776, under the king’s order, General William Howe evacuated his command from Boston and moved to New York to engage George Washington and the Continental army. As support, King George assembled an Armada of over 400 ships of the line and sent them to invade the newly united states in America, at New York.
King George’s invasion was the last straw. On July 4th, 1776, the Continental Congress adopted the “Declaration of Independence”, published it, sent it to the King George and began its delivery to the troops.
To get into this history and understand what it was like to be a alive then, read Prelude to Glory, by Ron Carter. This 8 volume historical novel brings our history to life. Your passion for our nation will awaken with understanding while you follow these people from the first signs of war through the setting of the Constitution. Valley Forge and many other landmarks of these incredible patriots come to life and finally you will awaken to your rights and what it took to secure them.
From March 1, 1781, to June 21, 1788, The Articles of Confederation were in force as the first constitution of The United States of America.
When the War was over they formed a new nation with a foundational document, The Articles of Confederation, that document recognized this nation as a nation made up of independent sovereign united States, and gave the name to the new nation as: “The United States of America”.
Many of the people of this new nation felt that it was wrong to leave England. Sure there were rights violations but those were livable and their future was a certainty as an English Colony. Now that they were on their own nothing at all was sure.
Over the next ten years conditions in this country continually got worse. The individual States gave little regard to any other State and paid nearly no attention at all to the central government. After ten years of independence from England conditions were far worse than they had ever been under England’s rule and protection. Many wanted government officials to go back to England and beg the King to take us back, and they almost did. Again, in the Prelude to Glory: Vol. 7: The Impending Storm you’ll discover the starvation and destitution the Articles of Confederation left our country in after the war and the necessity of our Constitution to save the nation. It was incredible!
“To form a more perfect Union”Allowing Great Britain to retake the nation was considered too severe without first attempting to resolve the problems of this new nation by getting the States to sit down and work out the problems with the Articles of Confederation. That meeting was finally arranged and each of the Sovereign States gave authority to a few men, Deputies, to sit in convention, and review the present form of government as set in the Articles so as to eliminate its limitations, give sufficient power to the central government to function while still preserving the liberty of the People and autonomy of the States. A trust indenture was formed, it simply began as follows:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”Continuing with seven Articles and concluding with the signatures of the representative of the twelve states present at the convention. Once agreed to and signed by the individual State’s representatives at the convention, the Trust was formed.
The Trust indenture, with the intent and authority of the people created a “Constitutional Republic” form of government in trust.
Though the document had no header its leading paragraph named it this: “Constitution for the United States of America”.
On, September 17th, 1787, it was resolved by the Convention to take the Trust to the individual States for ratification.
The States conditionally turned the Trust down because it removed their sovereignty and didn’t secure man’s God given inherent rights, without which the States would not give up their sovereignty to support the Constitution.
Remember, these individual States were recognized as individual Sovereign States in the Articles of Confederation. That was the principle error with the Articles of Confederation; there was no accountability or control over the individual States—there was no unity. Without accountability whoever was in power simply ignored the central government and moved forward however they saw fit, in violation of individual rights, or not, literally however they saw fit. In essence, they were each literally absolutely powerful kingdoms.
It was obvious that if something wasn’t done to unite the States with a more perfect Union they would be destroyed from within or without. So when offered the Constitutional Republic, the individual sovereign States leaders could see they would no longer be sovereign if they accepted it—but they would be destroyed if they didn’t.
Not much of a choice, but the war with England ended only a little over ten years earlier and they couldn’t go back, so they demanded that if they were to give up their sovereignty, the people’s rights must be preserved from the central government. Thus, they conditionally refused the Trust until the “Bill of Rights” was added.
Therefore, the Constitution was first created to form a Trust commonly known as the government of The United States of America. Government officials were set up within the Trust as Trustees with specific defined responsibilities and functions.
The People were made beneficiaries of the Trust and when any government official takes office he or she is required to swear or affirm an oath of allegiance [make a contract with the people to uphold the Constitution].
Remember, at this point the government was already created in trust, by the signed Constitution and George Washington was already positioned as its President, yet the Trust had nobody sitting in the other offices of government and the States were not willing to support it (give up their sovereignty) and authorize its officers to function with control over them unless the people’s rights and the State’s rights were secured.
The Deputies reconvened as the First Constitutional Convention and went back to work to draft the requested, Bill of Rights, which were later provided as the First Twelve Amendments to The Constitution of the United States of America (only ten were ratified), a document that was created to bind officers in an Oath to uphold the Trust of the people and secure the peoples rights.
Then The Constitution for the United States of America (still signed and unchanged from its original version as first presented to the states), along with the “Bill of Rights” as the first ten amendments to The Constitution of the United States of America, were returned to the individual States and were ratified by each of those States and returned to the Constitutional Convention where the new government was made fully effective and put in operation on or after, December 15th, 1791, the “Effective date” of The Constitution of the United States of America.
Now let’s go back and again review the documents created in the process by name. (Names are about to become very important when we go to the next step and begin to follow the money.)
Here’s what happened step by step:First: There was the Trust, named within its own first paragraph as this, “Constitution for the United States of America”. Remember this document is a Trust indenture; it created a Trust called “the government of The United States of America”. This document was accepted and signed by all of the Deputies. The signed Constitution created the government and under the capacity therein granted to Senators the Delegates seated George Washington as President of that government.
Second: The Trust was sent out for ratification of the individual States (because they had not yet agreed to give up their sovereignty).
Third: The individual States conditionally declined requiring a Bill of Rights limitation on the Constitution to make it acceptable.
Fourth: The First Constitutional Convention sat and generated the Bill of Rights (a set of supreme laws that limit government). The wording of the Bill recognized it as “Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America”; presupposing that the Constitution already existed as set. Note: they did not regenerate the Constitution; it was already signed and accepted by each of the State’s representatives and the Constitutional Republic was already in force; they simply added the Bill of Rights so the Republic would forever remain of, by, and for the people.
Fifth: The individual States were given the original Constitution with the attached “Bill of Rights” under the name “Constitution of the United States of America” and all of the States accepted and ratified the documents.
Sixth: With the ratification of the Trust and its “Bill of Rights”, the government was accepted as formed, in trust, yet still, other than George Washington, there were no officers in the seats of the government. [It’s very important for us to notice this status of the government.**]
Seventh: The Constitutional Convention again sat to perform their final acts as the Creator of the Trust. They appointed officials to sit in the primary seats of the newly formed Constitutional Republic and to so serve until an election could be held.
Eighth: Those officials now appointed could not take office until they each individually first swore an Oath of Office stating they would uphold the, Constitution of the United States of America. Again it is very important to notice the name used in the Bill or Rights and now used for this “contract” with the officers and agencies serving under Oath to obey and uphold the: Constitution of the United States of America, not, “for”, but ”of”.
Note: It’s important to note here that we are indeed talking about two different documents. The First, the, Constitution for the United States of America, is a Trust and the Second, the, Constitution of the United States of America, is a contract between the officers of government and the beneficiaries of the Trust.
After the Constitution was in place, and elections were held ratifying George Washington as President things went fairly well until the Civil War.
In 1863, Lincoln instituted martial law and ordered that the States either conscribe troops and provide money in support of the North or be recognized as and enemy of the nation; this martial law Act of Congress is still in effect today—what it means is that the President has dictatorial authority to do anything that can be done by the government in accord with the Constitution of the United States of America. This martial law authority is still in effect to this day and this Act was the foundation of today’s Presidential Executive Orders.
By 1868 the war was over and the government had a gigantic problem. Until that time Congressmen were equally, collectively and severably liable for any official acts they performed outside of their constitutional limitations. It was much like a General Partnership. In the wake of the war martial law was necessarily enforced in the South and carpetbaggers were sent down to "help adjust property ownership problems” after the war. Many great atrocities were committed making the vulnerability to lawsuit unbearable. It was considered that, in the interest of better handling the business interests and needs of government, the government should form a corporation, because from the protection of such a corporation they could continue to do what they felt was necessary to reunite the Union. To accomplish this, under the Constitution’s allowance for Congress to pass (and enforce) any law within the 10 mile square of Washington, D.C., they passed The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 (Chapter 62, 16 Statutes at Large, 419).
Corp. USAUnder The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 a private corporation named, ”The District of Columbia”, was formed. It trademarked the names ”THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT”, ”United States”, ”U.S.”, ”U.S.A.”, ”USA”, and ”America”. It should be noted that this corporation was not simply a reformation of the municipality as its Organic Act was chartered in 1808. Without amending that municipality’s charter, this 1871 Act marked the creation of a new private corporation known as, "The District of Columbia” (hereinafter ”Corp. U.S.”) owned and operated by the actual government for the purpose of carrying out the business needs of the government under martial law. This was done under the constitutional authority for Congress to pass any law within the ten mile square of Washington, District of Columbia. In said, Act Corp. U.S. adopted their own constitution the (United States Constitution), which was identical to the national Constitution (Constitution of the United States of America) except that it was missing the national Constitution’s 13th Article of Amendment and the national Constitution’s 14th, 15th and 16th Articles of Amendment are respectively numbered 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments in their constitution.
Corp. U.S. was not well received by the people so Congress revised the Act in 1874 and finalized it in 1878.
Corp. U.S. began issuing bonds to cover the expenses of running government. By 1912 there was more bond debt due than there was money in the Treasury to pay and the debt was called.
Seven very powerful families had been buying up the bonds and in 1912 they demanded their timely redemption. When Corp. U.S. couldn’t come up with the money due, its owner (the actual government) was obligated to pay. The Treasury of the United States of America did not have sufficient funds to cover the bonds either but the seven families accepted all of the assets of the nation’s Treasury along with all of the assets of Corp. U.S.’ Treasury as a settlement of the debt saving the nation from bankruptcy.
By 1913 there was still no money for operating the government/corporation, and if Corp. U.S. didn’t do something the people would revolt against them, so Corp. U.S. went to those seven very powerful families and asked if they could borrow money from them.
The Federal Reserve BankThe heads of those families refused to loan Corp. U.S. any money because Corp. U.S. had already proven that it would not pay its debts back in full. They did however make arrangements and provisions to issue notes (Federal Reserve Notes) like letters of credit while they secured the notes for redemption with real money. On Jekyll Island in 1913 the Federal Reserve Bank privately agreed to so fund Corp. U.S. in their endeavors. Such an action would have been a gigantic violation of law if the government tried such a thing, but there is no law against private corporations making such arrangements.
The real problem is in the name. How does one tell the difference between a corporation going by the name, "THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT”, and the government of the Unites States of America?
What’s worse, how do you tell the difference between the ”United States” [a Trust and the body of government that represents the Trust, as Trustees], and the ”United States” a trademark name for, "The District of Columbia” [a private corporation]?
The answer is simple, you can’t unless you can tell by the context of what’s being done.
The problem gets even larger when you take into consideration the fact that the officers of government are also the officers of the corporation. They were simultaneously appointed or elected into their offices, both in the corporation and in the government at the same time. In virtually every way the name of their offices and their responsibilities as corporate officials and as government officers were coincidental between 1871 and 1913.
There was no conflict in interest because the Corp. U.S.’ purpose was to fulfill the business needs of the actual government.
I’m not going to here go into all of the details and ramifications of the arrangements between Corp. U.S. and the Federal Reserve Bank. The simple fact is: Where the government couldn’t lawfully be involved with the Federal Reserve Bank, the corporation can be.
Vacating the seats of GovernmentUnder all of the media coverage of the Federal Reserve Bank Act, Corp. U.S. passes and adopts (as if ratified) their own 16th Amendment. Remember, this amendment has nothing to do with our nation, with our people or with our national Constitution, which already had its own 16th Article of Amendment as of 1870. The Supreme Court ruled that Corp. U.S.’ 16th Amendment did nothing that was not already done other than to make plain and clear the right of the United States (Corp. U.S.) to tax corporations. We agree, considering that they were obviously created only under the authority of Corp. U.S. Two months later Corp. U.S.’ Congress entered their 17th Amendment as ratified. Again in the corporate ratification pattern of the Corp. U.S. 16th amendment was followed with actual State ratification. This amendment is not even constitutional; the Constitution forbids Congress from even discussing the matter of where Senators are elected. For our national Congress to pass such an Amendment they would first have to Amend the Constitution to allow their discussion of the matter. Either way the result is that in Corp. U.S. their corporate officials known as Senators would thereafter be elected by a popular vote of their contracted voting public, while in the actual government (hereinafter ”original jurisdiction government”) Senators would continue to be appointed by the State’s Legislature or by the State’s Governor. In other words, the Corp. U.S. seats and the original jurisdiction government seats would not thereafter be seated by the same individual.
In 1914, the Freshman class and all Senators that successfully ran for reelection in 1913 by popular vote are seated in Corp. U.S. capacity only and the original jurisdiction Senate seat was vacated, because the States failed to appoint new Senators (after all no law compels them to).
In 1916, President Wilson is reelected by the Electoral College but their election is required to be confirmed by the constitutionally set Senate; where the new Corp. U.S. only Senators were allowed to participate in the Electoral College vote confirmation the only authority that could possibly have been used for electoral confirmation was corporate only. Therefore, President Wilson was not confirmed into office for his second term as President of the United States of America and was only seated in the Corp. U.S. Presidential capacity. Therefore the original jurisdiction government’s seats were vacated because the people didn’t seat any original jurisdiction government officers.
In 1917, Corp. U.S. enters W.W.I and passes their Trading with the Enemies Act.
In 1933, Corp. U.S. went bankrupt and the States agreed to support their resolution. In keeping with the bankruptcy, the Corp. U.S. Congress adjusted their Trading with the Enemies Act with their Emergency War Powers Act, which recognized the people of the United States of America are enemies of Corp. U.S.
No Elections since 1913Therefore there was no election of officers of the government of the United States of America. And all of America was none the wiser. The government was still there and the Constitution was still alive and well and living in Washington, D.C. but once again** there was nobody sitting in the seats of the officers of government; just like it was when the founding fathers signed the Constitution but the States had not ratified it, the government existed but no one was seated in office.
There hasn’t been an Election since, and there won’t be one until America once again wakes up.
This is fantastic, I know, but look at the facts! This is the only solution that makes sense and fits the facts.
The U.N., IMF, & World BankSo we jump from 1913 and the setting of the Federal Reserve Bank as the financier of Corp. U.S. to 1944 and W.W.II. The war was continuing and the United States was not fairing too well until the formation of The Bretton Woods Agreements and their new players—”The International Monetary Fund” (a.k.a. the ”Fund”, hereinafter ”IMF”), and ”The World Bank for Reconstruction and Development” (a.k.a. the ”Bank”, hereinafter ”World Bank”). Make sure you’re sitting down for this one.
The United States Code (USC) Title 22 § 286 reads:
”§ 286. Acceptance of membership by the United States in International Monetary Fund.”The President is hereby authorized to accept membership for the United States in the International Monetary Fund (hereinafter referred to as the ”Fund”), and in the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (hereinafter referred to as the ”Bank”), provided for by the Articles of Agreement of the Fund and the Articles of Agreement of the Bank as set forth in the Final Act of the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference dated July 22, 1944, and deposited in the archives of the Department of State. (July 31, 1945, ch. 339, § 2, 59 Stat. 512.) Short titles: … May be cited as the ‘Bretton Woods Agreements Act’.”Other provisions:Par value modification. For the Congressional direction that the Secretary of the Treasury maintain the value in terms of gold of the Inter-American Development Bank’s holdings of United States dollars following the establishment of a par value of the dollar at $38 for a fine troy ounce of gold pursuant to the Par Value Modification Act and for the authorization of the appropriations necessary to provide such maintenance of value, see 31 USC § 449a.” (accents in red added).
[It should be noted that recently, to cover-up the Bretton Woods Agreements (hereinafter ”BWA”) control and the quitclaim of the United States Government to the IMF, the United States Congress abolished the references in the USC referring to the BWA. Other than removing such references that abolishment had no effect on the BWA.]
The Quit Claim DeedThe agreement further transfers the assets of the United States Treasury to the IMF by stating words to the effect of: ‘the United States Treasury is now the Individual Drawing account of the IMF’.
Think about it.“The President is hereby authorized to accept membership for the United States in the IMF”
The President is authorized by whom? By Congress? No. According to the Act the authorization came from, ”the Articles of Agreement of the Fund and the Articles of Agreement of the Bank as set forth in the Final Act of the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference dated July 22, 1944”, a.k.a. The Bretton Woods Agreement’s final act.
Even if Congress could have authorized such a thing, where would they get the authority to so do? Certainly not from the Constitution, and Congress can’t lawfully do anything the Constitution doesn’t authorize them to do. Even under the President’s dictatorial authority of martial law, the President cannot lawfully do anything not authorized in the Constitution.
The Constitution plainly states: ”The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Ninth amendment; and, ”The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Tenth Amendment
Further this joining in the IMF is obviously an international agreement; and, any good dictionary will define, ”an agreement between nations” as a, ”Treaty”. The constitution is very specific on how treaties are to be engaged in with this nation — First, the President signs the treaty; and Second, the Senate ratifies his signature with a two-thirds majority vote. That didn’t happen here.
So if the right wasn’t given in the Constitution, Congress can’t take it and give it to the President. This act itself states that the alleged authorization came from the “ Final Act of the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference” instead of from Congress.
Now, hold on a second here. There are too many things going on here that can’t be. Too many conflicts. Even in a corrupt government they’d never get away with it.
I was watching Star Trek one time when Spock explained a logical solution to an identity problem like this, ‘When you examine the solutions and you discover what cannot be, the solution can only be whatever is left.’
That’s the problem here, in Law, it cannot be what it seems to be, yet it is. The United States of America cannot be a member in the IMF, and the Treasury of the United States of America cannot be turned over to a foreign bank’s control. The only thing left is they must be talking about Corp. U.S. which was quit claimed to the IMF under the Bretton Woods Agreement as a settlement of W.W.II; that makes Corp. U.S. a private foreign corporation. We can find nothing that says a corporation cannot quit claim itself to another owner, foreign or otherwise.
Now think about it. And, this time instead of thinking the government did it [because they couldn’t have], think about Corp. U.S. OK. In that case where it says, “The President is hereby authorized to accept membership for the United States”, “United States” as used here can only mean be the trademark name for the corporation known as, “The District of Columbia” in other words the corporation formed in 1871, and not the government.
Want further confirmation? OK. In the “Other provisions:” section it talks about, “the Secretary of Treasury”, which is an officer of the corporation only. That position does not exist in the national government. The relatively equivalent position in national government is, “the Treasurer of the United States of America” and that seat was vacated by an Act of Congress in 1920.
As a matter of fact when you review the whole document, Title 22 § 286, and the underlying “Bretton Woods Agreement”, you’ll find these elements.
One — Corp. U.S.’ signs the Bretton Woods Agreements (treaty) and Congress gives Title 22 § 286 the short title of Bretton Woods Agreement Act.
Two — In said Agreement, Congress Grants to the IMF the “United States Treasury” as, “The individual drawing account” for the IMF.
Three — “The President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint a governor of the Fund who shall serve as a governor of the Bank” USC 22 § 286a.
The person the President chose as Governor of the World Bank and IMF is Corp. U.S.’ Secretary of the Treasury.
The elements of a Quit Claim Deed are: there must be a Grantor, a Grantee, and some thing, asset or right must be granted.
In this case the thing being granted is a corporation known as, “The District of Columbia”, trademark names, THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, United States, U.S., USA, America, etc.; its assets are its Treasury (The United States Treasury), and its purpose is to carry out the business needs of the national government of United States of America. Up until the Bretton Woods Agreement, the owner of Corp. U.S. was the United States of America, the actual government; thereafter it was the IMF. The Treasury of the corporation was granted by Grantor, the government of the United States of America (Congress and the President) to the Grantee, the IMF.
Therefore USC Title 22 § 286 exemplifies the Quit Claim Deed of Corp. U.S. from The United States of America to the IMF, which is owned and controlled by the Great Britain’s Bank of International Settlements. Up to the point of the quit claim deed, there was allegedly no conflict in interests between Corp. U.S. and its owner the national government of the United States of America, but after the quit claim deed, with the new owner being foreign and having foreign interests, there is a gigantic conflict in interests.
Upon review of these actions, as Spock would say, that is the only solution left when you remove all other options.
The States join Corp. U.S.Starting around 1962 and continuing through 1968. Corp. U.S. went to the States and pointed out to them that their own constitutions forbid them from participating in foreign currencies and/or foreign loans, foreign bonds, etc., and yet they were dealing in the foreign note system of Federal Reserve Notes. They were warned that if the people became aware of this they could imagine a scene similar to that of the Magna Carta signing where the Lords held a sword to the King’s head and said sign or we’ll get a new king.
The king signed, as did the States. One by one, they organized private corporations as sub-corps. to Corp. U.S.
For example, Colorado rewrote Colorado’s Constitution, revised their Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS), and enacted CRS Title 24 as the “Administrative Organization Act of 1968” restructuring its laws in 1968. Said Title 24 is the new corporate charter for, “THE STATE OF COLORADO” which is Corp. U.S. possession.
By 1972 every State in the Union had done the same thing.
The California Republic, formed “THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA”; The Republic of Texas formed “THE STATE OF TEXAS”; The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, formed “THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA”; and so it went, until each and every State had formed a private corporation of a name like “THE STATE OF _______”, where the blank is a common name for the State. As people registered to vote with these corporations they participated in their elections of corporate officials and bonded debts; they also stopped electing original jurisdiction State government officials, thus unknowingly vacating their actual State governments. http://www.teamlaw.org/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
