Sunday, January 27, 2008

The Missing Original 13th Amendment

Dear All:

Here is an interesting legal issue for you all to ponder. According
to this and many other sources, there was a 13th Amendment to the
Constitution *for* the (u)nited States of America that was removed
during the time before the Civil War. This Amendment had a *very*
specific intention which is explained in the below text.

Since the original writing/publishing of this report, several
researchers, including myself, have found more evidence that
conclusively proves that such an Amendment did in fact exist and was
either ratified or was about to be (this is still unclear, but
evidence suggests that it *was* ratified).

I have *in my possession* proof of its existence. We examined the
"records" of many states and found several copies of this same
information. The copies of the Amendment that I have are from many
different places and many different government sources.
Astoundingly, this information is *still* in the various records as
the papers that I have are mere photocopies of the documents
containing the Amendment obtained from various public libraries.

More research is being conducted and I will be happy to snail-mail
these copies to anyone interested.

From Virginia:

The Revised Code of the LAWS OF VIRGINIA

March 18, 1819 Also, a similar document from Colorado, from the
Congressional Record, a copy of the Amendments to the Constitution,
a copy of "This volume of the Laws of Colorado Territory, and a
similar Amendment to the Virginia Constitution.

Without further ado, here is "The Missing 13th Amendment".
The Missing 13th Amendment

David M. Dodge, Researcher Date 08/01/91
The Missing 13th Amendment, Part I

In the winter of 1983, archival research expert David Dodge, and
former Baltimore police investigator Tom Dunn, were searching for
evidence of government corruption in public records stored in the
Belfast Library on the coast of Maine.

By chance, they discovered the library's oldest authentic copy of
the Constitution of the United States (printed in 1825). Both men
were stunned to see this document included a 13th Amendment that no
longer appears on current copies of the Constitution. Moreover,
after studying the Amendment's language and historical context, they
realized the principle intent of this "missing" 13th Amendment was
to prohibit lawyers from serving in government.

So began a seven year, nationwide search for the truth surrounding
the most bizarre Constitutional puzzle in American history -- the
unlawful removal of a ratified Amendment from the Constitution of
the United States. Since 1983, Dodge and Dunn have uncovered
additional copies of the Constitution with the "missing" 13th
Amendment printed in at least eighteen separate publications by ten
different states and territories over four decades from 1822 to

In June of this year, Dodge uncovered the evidence that this missing
13th Amendment had indeed been lawfully ratified by the state of
Virginia and was therefore an authentic Amendment to the American
Constitution. If the evidence is correct and no logical errors have
been made, a 13th Amendment restricting lawyers from serving in
government was ratified in 1819 and removed from our Constitution
during the tumult of the Civil War.

Since the Amendment was never lawfully repealed, it is still the Law
today. The implications are enormous.

The story of this "missing" Amendment is complex and at times
confusing because the political issues and vocabulary of the
American Revolution were different from our own. However, there are
essentially two issues: What does the Amendment mean? and, Was the
Amendment ratified? Before we consider the issue of ratification, we
should first understand the Amendment's meaning and consequent
current relevance. MEANING of the 13th Amendment

The "missing" 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States reads as follows:

"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." [Emphasis added.}

At the first reading, the meaning of this 13th Amendment (also
called the "title of nobility" Amendment) seems obscure,
unimportant. The references to "nobility", "honour", "emperor",
"king", and "prince" lead us to dismiss this amendment as a petty
post-revolution act of spite directed against the British monarchy.
But in our modern world of Lady Di and Prince Charles, anti-royalist
sentiments seem so archaic and quaint, that the Amendment can be

Not so. Consider some evidence of its historical significance:
First, "titles of nobility" were prohibited in both Article VI of
the Articles of Confederation (1777) and in Article I, Sect. 9 of
the Constitution of the United States (1778); Second, although
already prohibited by the Constitution, an additional "title of
nobility" amendment was proposed in 1789, again in 1810, and
according to Dodge, finally ratified in 1819. Clearly, the founding
fathers saw such a serious threat in "titles of nobility" and
"honors" that anyone receiving them would forfeit their citizenship.
Since the government prohibited "titles of nobility" several times
over four decades, and went through the amending process (even
though "titles of nobility" were already prohibited by the
Constitution), it's obvious that the Amendment carried much more
significance for our founding fathers than is readily apparent

To understand the meaning of this "missing" 13th Amendment, we must
understand its historical context -- the era surrounding the
American Revolution.

We tend to regard the notion of "Democracy" as benign, harmless, and
politically unremarkable. But at the time of the American
Revolution, King George III and the other monarchies of Europe saw
Democracy as an unnatural, ungodly ideological threat, every bit as
dangerously radical as Communism was once regarded by modern Western
nations. Just as the 1917 Communist Revolution in Russia spawned
other revolutions around the world, the American Revolution provided
an example and incentive for people all over the world to overthrow
their European monarchies.

Even though the Treaty of Paris ended the Revolutionary War in 1783,
the simple fact of our existence threatened the monarchies. The
United States stood as a heroic role model for other nations, that
inspired them to also struggle against oppressive monarchies. The
French Revolution (1789-1799) and the Polish national uprising
(1794) were in part encouraged by the American Revolution. Though
we stood like a beacon of hope for most of the world, the monarchies
regarded the United States as a political typhoid Mary, the
principle source of radical democracy that was destroying monarchies
around the world. The monarchies must have realized that if the
principle source of that infection could be destroyed, the rest of
the world might avoid the contagion and the monarchies would be

Their survival at stake, the monarchies south to destroy or subvert
the American system of government. Knowing they couldn't destroy us
militarily, they resorted to more covert methods of political
subversion, employing spies and secret agents skilled in bribery and
legal deception - - it was, perhaps, the first "cold war". Since
governments run on money, politicians run for money, and money is
the usual enticement to commit treason, much of the monarchy's
counter-revolutionary efforts emanated from English banks. DON'T
BANK ON IT (Modern Banking System) The essence of banking was once
explained by Sir Josiah Stamp, a former president of the Bank of

"The modern banking system manufactures money out of
nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding
piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking
was conceived in inequity and born in sin... Bankers own
the earth. Take it away from them but leave them the
power to create money, and, with a flick of a pen, they
will create enough money to buy it back again... Take
this great power away form them and all great fortunes
like mine will disappear, for then this would be a better
and happier world to live in... But, if you want to
continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost
of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create
money and control credit."

The last great abuse of our banking system caused the depression of
the 1930's. Today's abuses may cause another. Current S&L and bank
scandals illustrate the on-going relationships between banks,
lawyers, politicians, and government agencies (look at the current
BCCI bank scandal, involving lawyer Clark Clifford, politician Jimmy
Carter, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and even the CIA). These
scandals are the direct result of years of law breaking by an
alliance of bankers and lawyers using their influence and money to
corrupt the political process and rob the public. (Think you're not
being robbed? Guess who's going to pay the bill for the excesses of
the S&L's, taxpayer? You are.)

The systematic robbery of productive individuals by parasitic
bankers and lawyers is not a recent phenomenon. This abuse is a
human tradition that predates the Bible and spread from Europe to
America despite early colonial prohibitions.

When the first United States Bank was chartered by Congress in 1790,
there were only three state banks in existence. At one time, banks
were prohibited by law in most states because many of the early
settlers were all too familiar with the practices of the European
goldsmith banks.

Goldsmith banks were safe houses used to store client's gold. In
exchange for the deposited gold, customers were issued notes (paper
money) which were redeemable in gold. The goldsmith bankers quickly
succumbed to the temptation to issue "extra" notes, (unbacked by
gold). Why? Because the "extra" notes enriched the bankers by
allowing them to buy property with notes for gold that they did not
own, gold that did not even exist.

Colonists knew that bankers occasionally printed too much paper
money, found themselves over-leveraged, and caused a "run on the
bank". If the bankers lacked sufficient gold to meet the demand,
the paper money became worthless and common citizens left holding
the paper were ruined. Although over-leveraged bankers were
sometime hung, the bankers continued printing extra money to
increase their fortunes at the expense of the productive members of
society. (The practice continues to this day, and offers
"sweetheart" loans to bank insiders, and even provides the
foundation for deficit spending and our federal government's
unbridled growth.)

If the colonists forgot the lessons of goldsmith bankers, the
American Revolution refreshed their memories. To finance the war,
Congress authorized the printing of continental bills of credit in
an amount not to exceed $200,000,000. The States issued another
$200,000,000 in paper notes. Ultimately, the value of the paper
money fell so low that they were soon traded on speculation from
5000 to 1000 paper bills for one coin.

It's often suggested that our Constitution's prohibition against a
paper economy -- "No State shall... make any Thing but gold and
silver Coin a tender in Payment of Debts" -- was a tool of the
wealthy to be worked to the disadvantage of all others. But only in
a "paper" economy can money reproduce itself and increase the claims
of the wealthy at the expense of the productive.

"Paper money," said Pelatiah Webster, "polluted the equity of our
laws, turned them into engines of oppression, corrupted the justice
of our public administration, destroyed the fortunes of thousands
who had confidence in it, enervated the trade, husbandry, and
manufactures of our country, and went far to destroy the morality of
our people."

A few examples of the attempts by the monarchies and banks that
almost succeeded in destroying the United States:

According to the Tennessee Laws (1715-1320, vol. II, p. 774), in the
1794 Jay Treaty, the United States agreed to pay 600,000 pounds
sterling to King George III, as reparations for the American
revolution. The Senate ratified the treaty in secret session and
ordered that it not be published. When Benjamin Franklin's grandson
published it anyway, the exposure and resulting public up-roar so
angered the Congress that it passed the Alien and Sedition Acts
(1798) so federal judges could prosecute editors and publishers for
reporting the truth about the government.

Since we had won the Revolutionary War, why would our Senators agree
to pay reparations to the loser? And why would they agree to pay
600,000 pounds sterling, eleven years after the war ended? It
doesn't make sense, especially in light of Senate's secrecy and
later fury over being exposed, unless we assume our Senators had
been bribed to serve the British monarchy and betray the American
people. That's subversion. The United States Bank had been opposed
by the Jeffersonians from the beginning, but the Federalists (the
pro-monarchy party) won out in its establishment. The initial
capitalization was $10,000,000 --80% of which would be owned by
foreign bankers. Since the bank was authorized to lend up to
$20,000,000 (double its paid in capital), it was a profitable deal
for both the government and the bankers since they could lend, and
collect interest on, $10,000,000 that didn't exist.

However, the European bankers outfoxed the government and by 1796,
the government owed the bank $6,200,000 and was forced to sell its
shares. (By 1802, our government owned no stock in the United
States Bank.)

The sheer power of the banks and their ability to influence
representative government by economic manipulation and outright
bribery was exposed in 1811, when the people discovered that
european banking interests owned 80% of the bank. Congress
therefore refused to renew the bank's charter. This led to the
withdrawal of $7,000,000 in specie by european investors, which in
turn, precipitated an economic recession, and the War of 1812.

That's destruction.

There are undoubtedly other examples of the monarchy's efforts to
subvert or destroy the United States; some are common knowledge,
others remain to be disclosed to the public. For example, David
Dodge discovered a book called "2 VA LAW" in the Library of Congress
Law Library. According to Dodge, "This is an un-catalogued book in
the rare book section that reveals a plan to overthrow the
constitutional government by secret agreements engineered by the
lawyers. That is one of the reasons why this amendment was ratified
by Virginia and the notification ~lost in the mail.' There is no
public record that this book exists."

That may sound surprising, but according to The Gazette (5/10/91),
"the Library of Congress has 349,402 un-catalogued rare books and
13.9 million un-catalogued rare manuscripts." There may be secrets
buried in that mass of documents even more astonishing than a
missing Constitutional Amendment.

In seeking to rule the world and destroy the United States, bankers
committed many crimes. Foremost among these crimes were fraud,
conversion, and plain old theft. To escape prosecution for their
crimes, the bankers did the same thing any career criminal does.
They hired and formed alliances with the best lawyers and judges
money could buy. These alliances, originally forged in Europe
(particularly in Great Britain), spread to the colonies, and later
into the newly formed United States of America.

Despite their criminal foundation, these alliances generated wealth,
and ultimately, respectability. Like any modern member of organized
crime, English bankers and lawyers wanted to be admired as
"legitimate businessmen". As their criminal fortunes grew so did
their usefulness, so the British monarchy legitimized these thieves
by granting them "titles of nobility".

Historically, the British peerage system referred to knights as
"Squires" and to those who bore the knight's shields as "Esquires".
As lances, shields, and physical violence gave way to the more
civilized means of theft, the pen grew mightier (and more
profitable) than the sword, and the clever wielders of those pens
(bankers and lawyers) came to hold titles of nobility. The most
common title was "Esquire" (used, even today, by some lawyers).

In Colonial America, attorneys trained attorneys but most held no
"title of nobility" or "honor". There was no requirement that one
be a lawyer to hold the position of district attorney, attorney
general, or judge; a citizen's "counsel of choice" was not
restricted to a lawyer; there were no state or national bar
associations. The only organization that certified lawyers was the
International Bar Association (IBA), chartered by the King of
England, headquartered in London, and closely associated with the
international banking system. Lawyers admitted to the IBA received
the rank "Esquire" -- a "title of nobility". "Esquire" was the
principle title of nobility which the 13th Amendment sought to
prohibit from the United States. Why? Because the loyalty of
"Esquire" lawyers was suspect. Bankers and lawyers with an
"Esquire" behind their names were agents of the monarchy, members of
an organization whose principle purposes were political, not
economic, and regarded with the same wariness that some people today
reserve for members of the KGB or the CIA.

Article 1, Sect. 9 of the Constitution sought to prohibit the
International Bar Association (or any other agency that granted
titles of nobility) from operating in America. But the Constitution
neglected to specify a penalty, so the prohibition was ignored, and
agents of the monarchy continued to infiltrate and influence the
government (as in the Jay Treaty and the US Bank charter incidents).
Therefore, a "title of nobility" amendment that specified a penalty
(loss of citizenship) was proposed in 1789, and again in 1810. The
meaning of the amendment is seen in its intent to prohibit persons
having titles of nobility and loyalties foreign governments and
bankers from voting, holding public office, or using their skills to
subvert the government.

The missing Amendment is referred to as the "title of nobility"
Amendment, but the second prohibition against "honour" (honor), may
be more significant.

According to David Dodge, Tom Dunn, and Webster's Dictionary, the
archaic definition of "honor" (as used when the 13th Amendment was
ratified) meant anyone "obtaining or having an advantage or
privilege over another". A contemporary example of an "honor"
granted to only a few Americans is the privilege of being a judge:
Lawyers can be judges and exercise the attendant privileges and
powers; non-lawyers cannot.

By prohibiting "honors", the missing Amendment prohibits any
advantage or privilege that would grant some citizens an unequal
opportunity to achieve or exercise political power. Therefore, the
second meaning (intent) of the 13th Amendment was to ensure
political equality among all American citizens, by prohibiting
anyone, even government officials, from claiming or exercising a
special privilege or power (an "honor") over other citizens.

If this interpretation is correct, "honor" would be the key concept
in the 13th Amendment. Why? Because, while "titles of nobility"
may no longer apply in today's political system, the concept of
"honor" remains relevant.

For example, anyone who had a specific "immunity" from lawsuits
which were not afforded to all citizens, would be enjoying a
separate privilege, an "honor", and would therefore forfeit his
right to vote or hold public office. Think of the "immunities" from
lawsuits that our judges, lawyers, politicians, and bureaucrats
currently enjoy. As another example, think of all the "special
interest" legislation our government passes: "special interests" are
simply euphemisms for "special privileges" (honors).

WHAT IF? (Implications if Restored)
If the missing 13th Amendment were restored, "special interests" and
"immunities" might be rendered unconstitutional. The prohibition
against "honors" (privileges) would compel the entire government to
operate under the same laws as the citizens of this nation. Without
their current personal immunities (honors), our judges and I.R.S.
agents would be unable to abuse common citizens without fear of
legal liability. If this 13th Amendment were restored, our entire
government would have to conduct itself according to the same
standards of decency, respect, law, and liability as the rest of the
nation. If this Amendment and the term "honor" were applied today,
our government's ability to systematically coerce and abuse the
public would be all but eliminated. Imagine. Imagine!

A government without special privileges or immunities. How could we
describe it? It would be ... almost like ... a government ... of
the people ... by the people ... for the people!

Imagine: a government ... whose members were truly accountable to
the public; a government that could not systematically exploit its
own people!

It's unheard of ... it's never been done before. Not ever in the
entire history of the world.

Bear in mind that Senator George Mitchell of Maine and the National
Archives concede this 13th Amendment was proposed by Congress in
1810. However, they explain that there were seventeen states when
Congress proposed the "title of nobility" Amendment; that
ratification required the support of thirteen states, but since only
twelve states supported the Amendment, it was not ratified. The
Government Printing Office agrees; it currently prints copies of the
Constitution of the United States which include the "title of
nobility" Amendment as proposed, but un-ratified.

Even if this 13th Amendment were never ratified, even if Dodge and
Dunn's research or reasoning is flawed or incomplete, it would still
be an extraordinary story.

Can you imagine, can you understand how close we came to having a
political paradise, right here on Earth? Do you realize what an
extraordinary gift our forebears tried to bequeath us? And how
close we came?

One vote. One state's vote.

The federal government concedes that twelve states voted to ratify
this Amendment between 1810 and 1812. But they argue that
ratification require thirteen states, so the Amendment lays
stillborn in history, unratified for lack of a just one more state's

One vote.

David Dodge, however, says one more state did ratify, and he claims
he has the evidence to prove it.

In 1789, the House of Representatives compiled a list of possible
Constitutional Amendments, some of which would ultimately become
our Bill of Rights. The House proposed seventeen; the Senate
reduced the list to twelve. During this process that Senator
Tristrain Dalton (Mass.) proposed an Amendment seeking to prohibit
and provide a penalty for any American accepting a "title of
Nobility" (RG 46 Records of the U.S. Senate). Although it wasn't
passed, this was the first time a "title of nobility" amendment was

Twenty years later, in January, 1810, Senator Reed proposed another
"Title of Nobility" Amendment (History of Congress, Proceedings of
the Senate, p. 529-530). On April 27, 1810, the Senate voted to
pass this 13th Amendment by a vote of 26 to 1; the House resolved in
the affirmative 87 to 3; and the following resolve was sent to the
States for ratification:

"If any citizen ofthe 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 Constitution requires three-quarters of the states to ratify a
proposed amendment before it may be added to the Constitution. When
Congress proposed the "Title of Nobility" Amendment in 1810, there
were seventeen states, thirteen of which would have to ratify for
the Amendment to be adopted. According to the National Archives,
the following is a list of the twelve states that ratified, and
their dates of ratification:

Maryland, Dec. 25, 1810 Vermont, Oct. 24, 1811
Kentucky, Jan. 31, 1811 Tennessee, Nov. 21, 1811
Ohio, Jan. 31, 1811 Georgia, Dec. 13, 1811
Delaware, Feb. 2, 1811 North Carolina,Dec. 23, 1811
Pennsylvania, Feb. 6, 1811 Massachusetts, Feb. 27, 1812
New Jersey, Feb. 13, 1811 New Hampshire, Dec. 10, 1812

Before a thirteenth state could ratify, the War of 1812 broke out
with England. By the time the war ended in 1814, the British had
burned the Capitol, the Library of Congress, and most of the records
of the first 38 years of government. Whether there was a connection
beween the proposed "title of nobility" amendment and the War of
1812 is not known. However, the momentum to ratify the proposed
Amendment was lost in the tumult of war.

Then, four years later, on December 31, 1817, the House of
Representatives resolved that President Monroe inquire into the
status of this Amendment. In a letter dated February 6, 1818,
President Monroe reported to the House that the Secretary of State
Adams had written to the governors of Virginia, South Carolina and
Connecticut to tell them that the proposed Amendment had been
ratified by twelve States and rejected by two (New York and Rhode
Island), and asked the governors to notify him of their
legislature's position. (House Document No. 76) (This, and other
letters written by the President and the Secretary of State during
the month of February,1818, note only that the proposed Amendment
had not yet been ratified.

However, these letters would later become crucial because, in the
absence of additional information they would be interpreted to mean
the amendment was never ratified).

On February 28, 1818, Secretary of State Adams reported the
rejection of the Amendment by South Carolina. [House Doc. No. 129].
There are no further entries regarding the ratification of the 13th
Amendment in the Journals of Congress; whether Virginia ratified is
neither confirmed nor denied. Likewise, a search through the
executive papers of Governor Preston of Virginia does not reveal any
correspondence from Secretaryof State Adams. (However, there is a
journal entry in the Virginia House that the Governor presented the
House with an official letter and documents from Washington within a
time frame that conceivably includes receipt of Adams' letter.)
Again, no evidence of ratification; none of denial.

However, on March 10, 1819, the Virginia legislature passed Act No.
280 (Virginia Archives of Richmond, "misc.' file, p. 299 for micro-

"Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that there shall be
published an edition of the Laws of this Commonwealth in
which shall be contained the following matters, that is to
say: the Constitution of the united States and the amendments

This act was the specific legislated instructions on what was, by
law, to be included in the re-publication (a special edition) of the
Virginia Civil Code. The Virginia Legislature had already agreed
that all Acts were to go into effect on the same day -- the day that
the Act to re-publish the Civil Code was enacted. Therefore, the
13th Amendment's official date of ratification would be the date of
re-publication of the Virginia Civil Code: March 12, 1819.

The Delegates knew Virginia was the last of the 13 States that were
necessary for the ratification of the 13th Amendment. They also
knew there were powerful forces allied against this ratification so
they took extraordinary measures to make sure that it was published
in sufficient quantity (4,000 copies were ordered, almost triple
their usual order), and instructed the printer to send a copy to
President James Monroe as well as James Madison and Thomas
Jefferson. (The printer, Thomas Ritchie, was bonded. He was
required to be extremely accurate in his research and his printing,
or he would forfeit his bond.)

In this fashion, Virginia announced the ratification: by
publication and dissemination of the Thirteenth Amendment of the
Constitution. There is question as to whether Virginia ever
formally notified the Secretary of State that they had ratified this
13th Amendment. Some have argued that because such notification was
not received (or at least, not recorded), the Amendment was
therefore not legally ratified. However, printing by a legislature
is prima facie evidence of ratification.

Further, there is no Constitutional requirement that the Secretary
of State, or anyone else, be officially notified to complete the
ratification process. The Constitution only requires that three-
fourths of the states ratify for an Amendment to be added to the
Constitution. If three- quarters of the states ratify, the
Amendment is passed. Period. The Constitution is otherwise silent
on what procedure should be used to announce, confirm, or
communicate the ratification of amendments.

Knowing they were the last state necessary to ratify the Amendment,
the Virginians had every right announce their own and the nation's
ratification of the Amendment by publishing it on a special edition
of the Constitution, and so they did.

Word of Virginia's 1819 ratification spread throughout the States
and both Rhode Island and Kentucky published the new Amendment in
1822. Ohio first published in 1824. Main ordered 10,000 copies of
the Constitution with the 13th Amendment to be printed for use in
the schools in 1825, and again in 1831 for their Census Edition.
Indiana Revised Laws of 1831 published the 13th Article on p. 20.
Northwestern Territories published in 1833. Ohio published in 1831
and 1833. Then came the Wisconsin Territory in 1839; Iowa Territory
in 1843; Ohio again, in 1848; Kansas Statutes in 1855; and Nebraska
Territory six times in a row from 1855 to 1860.

So far, David Dodge has identified eleven different states or
territories that printed the Amendment in twenty separate
publications over forty- one years. And more editions including
this 13th Amendment are sure to be discovered. Clearly, Dodge is
onto something.

You might be able to convince some of the people, or maybe even all
of them, for a little while, that this 13th Amendment was never
ratified. Maybe you can show them that the ten legislatures which
ordered it published eighteen times we've discovered (so far)
consisted of ignorant politicians who don't know their amendments
from their ... ahh, articles. You might even be able to convince
the public that our forefathers never meant to "outlaw" public
servants who pushed people around, accepted bribes or special favors
to "look the other way." Maybe. But before you do, there's an
awful lot of evidence to be explained.

In 1829, the following note appears on p. 23, Vol. 1 of the New York
Revised Statutes:

"In the edition of the Laws of the U.S. before referred to,
there is an amendment printed as article 13, prohibiting
citizens from accepting titles of nobility or honor, or
presents, offices, &c. from foreign nations. But, by a
message of the president of the United States of the 4th
of February, 1818, in answer to a resolution of the house
of representatives, it appears that this amendment had
been ratified only by 12 states, and therefore had not
been adopted. See Vol. IV of the printed papers of the
1st session of the 15th congress, No. 76."

In 1854, a similar note appeared in the Oregon Statutes. Both notes
refer to the Laws of the United States, 1st vol. p. 73 (or 74).

It's not yet clear whether the 13th Amendment was published in Laws
of the United States, 1st Vol., prematurely, by accident, in
anticipation of Virginia's ratification, or as part of a plot to
discredit the Amendment by making is appear that only twelve States
had ratified. Whether the Laws of the United States Vol. 1
(carrying the 13th Amendment) was re-called or made-up is unknown.
In fact, it's not even clear that the specified volume was actually
printed -- the Law Library of the Library of Congress has no record
of its existence.

However, because the notes authors reported no further references to
the 13th Amendment after the Presidential letter of February, 1818,
they apparently assumed the ratification process had ended in
failure at that time. If so, they neglected to seek information on
the Amendment after 1818, or at the state level, and therefore
missed the evidence of Virginia's ratification. This opinion --
assuming that the Presidential letter of February, 1818, was the
last word on the Amendment -- has persisted to this day.

In 1849, Virginia decided to revise the 1819 Civil Code of Virginia
(which had contained the 13th Amendment for 30 years). It was at
that time that one of the code's revisers (a lawyer named Patton)
wrote to the Secretary of the Navy, William B. Preston, asking if
this Amendment had been ratified or appeared by mistake. Preston
wrote to J. M. Clayton, the Secretary of State, who replied that
this Amendment was not ratified by a sufficient number of States.
This conclusion was based upon the information that Secretary of
State J.Q. Adams had provided the House of Representatives in 1818,
before Virginia's ratification in 1819. (Even today, the
Congressional Research Service tells anyone asking about this 13th
Amendment this same story: that only twelve states, not the
requisite thirteen, had ratified.) However, despite Clayton's
opinion, the Amendment continued to be published in various states
and territories for at least another eleven years (the last known
publication was in the Nebraska territory in 1860).

Once again the 13th Amendment was caught in the riptides of American
politics. South Carolina seceded from the Union in December of
1860, signalling the onset of the Civil War. In March, 1861,
President Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated. Later in 1861,
another proposed amendment, also numbered thirteen, was signed by
President Lincoln. This was the only proposed amendment that was
ever signed by a president. That resolve to amend read:

"ARTICLE THIRTEEN, No amendment shall be made
to the Constitution which will authorize or give to
Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within
any State, with the domestic institutions thereof,
including that of persons held to labor or service by the
laws of said State."

(In other words, President Lincoln had signed a resolve that would
have permitted slavery, and upheld states' rights.) Only one State,
Illinois, ratified this proposed amendment before the Civil War
broke out in 1861.

In the tumult of 1865, the original 13th Amendment was finally
removed from our Constitution. On January 31, another 13th
Amendment (which prohibited slavery in Sect. 1, and ended states'
rights in Sect. 2) was proposed. On April 9, the Civil War ended
with General Lee's surrender.

On April 14, President Lincoln (who, in 1861, had signed the
proposed Amendment that would have allowed slavery and states
rights) was assassinated. On December 6, the "new" 13th Amendment
loudly prohibiting slavery (and quietly surrendering states rights
to the federal government) was ratified, replacing and effectively
erasing the original 13th Amendment that had prohibited "titles of
nobility" and "honors".

To create the present oligarchy (rule by lawyers) which we now
endure, the lawyers first had to remove the 13th "titles of
nobility" Amendment that might otherwise have kept them in check.
In fact, it was not until after the Civil War and after the
disappearance of this 13th Amendment, that American bar associations
began to appear and exercise political power.

Since the unlawful deletion of the 13th Amendment, the newly
developing bar associations began working diligently to create a
system wherein lawyers took on a title of privilege and nobility as
"Esquires" and received the "honor" of offices and positions (like
district attorney or judge) that only lawyers may now hold. By
virtue of these titles, honors, and special privileges, lawyers have
assumed political and economic advantages over the majority of U.S.
citizens. Through these privileges, they have nearly established a
two-tiered citizenship in this nation where a majority may vote, but
only a minority (lawyers) may run for political office. This two-
tiered citizenship is clearly contrary to Americans' political
interests, the nation's economic welfare, and the Constitution's
egalitarian spirit.

The significance of this missing 13th Amendment and its deletion
from the Constitution is this: Since the amendment was never
lawfully nullified, it is still in full force and effect and is the
Law of the land. I public support could be awakened, this missing
Amendment might provide a legal basis to challenge many existing
laws and court decisions previously made by lawyers who were
unconstitutionally elected or appointed to their positions of power;
it might even mean the removal of lawyers from our current
government system.

At the very least, this missing 13th Amendment demonstrates that two
centuries ago, lawyers were recognized as enemies of the people and
nation. Some things never change.

THOSE WHO CANNOT RECALL HISTORY .... Heed warnings of Founding
Fathers In his farewell address, George Washington warned of

"... change by usurpation; for through this, in one
instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the
customary weapon by which free governments
are destroyed."

In 1788, Thomas Jefferson proposed that we have a Declaration of
Rights similar to Virginia's. Three of his suggestions were
"freedom of commerce against monopolies, trial by jury in all cases"
and "no suspensions of the habeas corpus."

No doubt Washington's warning and Jefferson's ideas were dismissed
as redundant by those who knew the law. Who would have dreamed our
legal system would become a monopoly against freedom when that was
one of the primary causes for the rebellion against King George III?

Yet, the denial of trial by jury is now commonplace in our courts,
and habeas corpus, for crimes against the state, suspended. (By
crimes against the state, I refer to "political crimes" where there
is no injured party and the corpus delicti [evidence] is equally

The authority to create monopolies was judge-made law by Supreme
Court Justice John Marshall, et al during the early 1800's. Judges
(and lawyers) granted to themselves the power to declare the acts of
the People "un-Constitutional", waited until their decision was
grandfathered, and then granted themselves a monopoly by creating
the bar associations.

Although Article VI of the U.S. Constitution mandates that executive
orders and treaties are binding upon the states ("... and the Judges
in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution
or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."), the supreme
Court has held that the Bill of Rights is not binding upon the
states, and thereby resurrected many of the complaints enumerated in
the Declaration of Independence, exactly as Thomas Jefferson foresaw
in "Notes on the State of Virginia", Query 17, p. 161, 1784:

"Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless...
the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis
is [now] while our rulers are honest, and ourselves
united. From the conclusion of this war we shall
be going downhill. It will not then be necessary to
resort every moment to the people for support.
They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights
disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the
sole faculty of making money, and will never think of
uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The
shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked
off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long,
will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall
revive or expire in a convulsion."

We await the inevitable convulsion.

Only two questions remain: Will we fight to revive our rights? Or
will we meekly submit as our last remaining rights expire,
surrendered to the courts, and perhaps to a "new world order"?

As we go to press, I've received information from a researcher in
Indiana, and another in Dallas, who have found five more editions of
statutes that include the Constitution and the missing 13th

These editions were printed by Ohio, 1819; Connecticut (one of the
states that voted against ratifying the Amendment), 1835; Kansas,
1861; and the Colorado Territory, 1865 and 1867.

These finds are important because: 1) they offer independent
confirmation of Dodge's claims; and 2) they extend the known dates
of publication from Nebraska 1860 (Dodge's most recent find), to
Colorado in 1867.

The most intriguing discovery was the 1867 Colorado Territory
edition which includes both the "missing" 13th Amendment and the
current 13th Amendment (freeing the slaves), on the same page. The
current 13th Amendment is listed as the 14th Amendment in the 1867
Colorado edition.

This investigation has followed a labyrinthine path that started
with the questions about how our courts evolved from a temple of the
Bill of Rights to the current star chamber and whether this
situation had anything to do with retiring chief Justice Burger's
warning that we were "about to lose our constitution". My seven
year investigation has been fruitful beyond belief; the information
on the missing 13th Amendment is only a "drop in the bucket" of the
information I have discovered. Still, the research continues, and
by definition, is never truly complete.

If you will, please check your state's archives and libraries to
review any copies of the Constitution printed prior to the Civil
War, or any books containing prints of the Constitution before 1870.
If you locate anything related to this project we would appreciate
hearing from you so we may properly fulfill this effort of research.
Please send your comments or discoveries to:

Imagine a nation which prohibited at least some lawyers from serving
in government. Imagine a government prohibited from writing laws
granting "honors" (special privileges, immunities, or advantages) to
individuals, groups, or government officials. Imagine a government
that could only write laws that applied to everyone, even
themselves, equally.

It's never been done before. Not once.

But it has been tried: In 1810 the Congress of the United States
proposed a 13th Amendment to the Constitution that might have given
us just that sort of equality and political paradise.

The story begins (again) in 1983, when David Dodge and Tom Dunn
discovered an 1825 edition of the Maine Civil Code which contained
the U.S. Constitution and a 13th Amendment which no longer appears
on the Constitution:

If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim,
receive, or retain any title of nobility or honor, 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. {Emphasis added]

As outlined in the August AntiShyster, this Amendment would have
restricted at least some lawyers from serving in government, and
would prohibit legislators from passing any special interest
legislation, tax breaks, or special immunities for anyone, not even
themselves. It might have guaranteed a level of political equality
in this nation that most people can't even imagine.

Since 1983, researchers have uncovered evidence that:
1) The 13th Amendment prohibiting "titles of nobility" and "honors"
appeared in at least 30 editions of the Constitution of the United
States which were printed by at least 14 states or territories
between 1819 and 1867; and 2) This amendment quietly disappeared
from the Constitution near the end of the Civil War.

Either this Amendment:
1) Was unratified and mistakenly published for almost 50 years; or
2) Was ratified in 1819, and then illegally removed from the
Constitution by 1867.

If this 13th Amendment was unratified and mistakenly published, the
story has remained unnoticed in American history for over a century.
If so, it's at least a good story -- an extraordinary historical
anecdote. On the other hand, if Dodge is right and the Amendment
was truly ratified, an Amendment has been subverted from our
Constitution. If so, this "missing" Amendment would still be the
Law, and this story could be one of the most important stories in
American History.

Whatever the answer, it's certain that something extraordinary
happened to our Constitution between 1819 and 1867.

PROS AND CONS (for Ratification)
Of course, there are two sides to this issue. David Dodge, the
principal researcher, argues that this 13th Amendment was ratified
in 1819 and then subverted from the Constitution near the end of the
Civil War. U.S. Senator George Mitchell of Maine, and Mr. Dane
Hartgrove (Acting Assistant Chief, Civil Reference Branch of the
National Archives) have argued that the Amendment was never properly
ratified and only published in error.

There is some agreement. Both sides agree the Amendment was
proposed by Congress in 1810. Both sides also agree that the
proposed Amendment required the support of at least thirteen states
to be ratified. Both sides agree that between 1810 and 1812 twelve
states voted to support ratification.

The pivotal issue is whether Virginia ratified or rejected the
proposed Amendment. Dodge contends Virginia voted to support the
Amendment in 1819, and so the Amendment was truly ratified and
should still be a part of our Constitution. Senator Mitchell and
Mr. Hartgrove disagree, arguing that Virginia did not ratify.

Unfortunately, several decades of Virginia's legislative journals
were misplaced or destroyed (possibly during the Civil War; possibly
during the 1930's). Consequently, neither side has found absolute
proof that the Virginia legislature voted for (or against)

A series of letters exchanged in 1991 between David Dodge, Sen.
Mitchell, and Mr. Hartgrove illuminate the various points of

After Dodge's initial report of a "missing" Amendment in the 1825
Maine Civil Code, Sen. Mitchell explained that this edition was a
one-time publishing error:

"The Main Legislature mistakenly printed the
proposed Amendment in the Maine Constitution
as having been adopted. As you know, this was a
mistake, as it was not ratified."

Further, "All editions of the Maine Constitution printed after 1820
[sic] exclude the proposed amendment; only the originals contain
this error." Dodge dug deeper, found other editions (there are 30,
to date) of state and territorial civil codes that contained the
missing Amendment, and thereby demonstrated that the Maine
publication was not a "one-time" publishing error.

After examining Dodge's evidence of multiple publications of the
"missing" Amendment, Sen. Mitchell and Mr. Hartgrove conceded the
Amendment had been published by several states and was ratified by
twelve of the seventeen states in the Union in 1810. However,
because the Constitution requires that three-quarters of the states
vote to ratify an Amendment, Mitchell and Hartgrove insisted that
the 13th Amendment was published in error because it was passed by
only twelve, not thirteen States.

Dodge investigated which seventeen states were in the Union at the
time the Amendment was proposed, which states had ratified, which
states had rejected the amendment, and determined that the issue
hung on whether one last state (Virginia) had or had not, voted to
ratify. After several years of searching the Virginia state
archive, Dodge made a crucial discovery: In Spring of 1991, he
found a misplaced copy of the 1819 Virginia Civil Code which
included the "missing" 13th Amendment.

Dodge notes that, curiously, "There is no public record that shows
this book [the 1819 Virginia Civil Code] exists. It is not
catalogued as a holding of the Library of Congress nor is it in the
National Union Catalogue. Neither the state law library nor the law
school in Portland were able to find any trace that this book exists
in any of their computer programs."

Dodge sent photo-copies of the 1819 Virginia Civil Code to Sen.
Mitchell and Mr. Hartgrove, and explained that, "Under legislative
construction, it is considered prima facie evidence that what is
published as the official acts of the legislature are the official
acts." By publishing the Amendment as ratified in an official
publication, Virginia demonstrated: 1) that they knew they were the
last state whose vote was necessary to ratify this 13th Amendment;
2) that they had voted to ratify the Amendment; and 3) that they
were publishing the Amendment in a special edition of their Civil
Code as an official notice to the world that the Amendment had
indeed been ratified.

Dodge concluded, "Unless there is competing evidence to the
contrary, it must be held that the Constitution of the United States
was officially amended to exclude from its body of citizens any who
accepted or claimed a title of nobility or accepted any special
favors. Foremost in this category of ex-citizens are bankers and

RATIONALES (for Ratification)
Undeterred, Sen. Mitchell wrote that, "Article XIII did not receive
the three-fourths vote required from the states within the time
limit to be ratified." (Although his language is imprecise, Sen.
Mitchell seems to concede that although the Amendment had failed to
satisfy the "time limit", the required three-quarters of the states
did vote to ratify.) Dodge replies: "Contrary to your assertion..,
there was no time limit for amendment ratification in 1811. Any
time limit is now established by Congress in the Resolves for
proposed amendments."

In fact, ratification time limits didn't start until 1917, when
Sect. 3 of the Eighteenth Amendment stated that,
"This Article shall be inoperative unless it shall have
been ratified within seven years from the date of
submission ... to the States by Congress."

A similar time limit is now included on other proposed Amendments,
but there was no specified time limit when the 13th Amendment was
proposed in 1810 or ratified in 1819.

Sen. Mitchell remained determined to find some rationale, somewhere,
that would defeat Dodge's persistence. Although Sen. Mitchell
implicitly conceded that his "published by error" and "time limit"
arguments were invalid, he continued to grope for reasons to dispute
the ratification: "... regardless of whether the state of Virginia
did ratify the proposed Thirteenth Amendment... on March 12, 1819,
this approval would not have been sufficient to amend the

In 1819, there were twenty-one states in the United States and any
amendment would have required approval of sixteen states to amend
the Constitution. According to your own research, Virginia would
have only been the thirteenth state to approve the proposed

Dodge replies: "Article V [amendment procedures] of the
Constitution is silent on the question of whether or not the framers
meant three- fourths of the states at the time the proposed
amendment is submitted to the states for ratification, or three-
fourths of the states that exist at som future point in time.
Since only the existingstates were involved in the debate and vote
of Congress on the Resolve proposing an Amendment, it is reasonable
that ratification be limited to those States that took an active
part in the Amendment process."

Dodge demonstrated this rationale by pointing out that, "President
Monroe had his Secretary of State... [ask the] governors of
Virginia, South Carolina, and Connecticut, in January, 1818, as to
the status of the amendment in their respective states. The four
new states (Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, and Illinois) that were
added to the union between 1810 and 1818 were not even considered."

From a modern perspective, it seems strange that not all states
would be included in the ratification process. But bear in mind
that our perspective is based on life in a stable nation that's
added only five new states in this century -- about one every
eighteen years. However, between 1803 and 1821 (when the 13th
Amendment ratification drama unfolded), they added eight states --
almost one new state every two years.

This rapid national growth undoubtedly fostered national attitudes
different from our own. The government had to be filled with the
euphoria of a growing Republic that expected to quickly add new
states all the way to the Pacific Ocean and the Isthmus of Panama.
The government would not willingly compromise or complicate that
growth potential with procedural obstacles; to involve every new
state in each on-going ratification could inadvertently slow the
nation's growth. For example, if a territory petitioned to join the
Union while an Amendment was being considered, its access to
statehood might depend on whether the territory expected to ratify
or reject a proposed amendment. If the territory was expected to
ratify the proposed Amendment government, officials who favored the
Amendment might try to accelerate the territory's entry into the
Union. On the other hand, those opposed to the Amendment might try
to slow or even deny a particular territory's statehood. These
complications could unnecessarily slow the entry of new states into
the nation, or restrict the nation's ability to pass new Amendments.
Neither possibility could appeal to politicians.

Whatever the reason, the House of Representatives resolved to ask
only Connecticut, South Carolina, and Virginia for their decision on
ratifying the 13th Amendment -- they did not ask for the decisions
of the four new states. Since the new states had Representatives in
the House who did not protest when the resolve was passed, it's
apparent that even the new states agreed that they should not be
included in the ratification process.

In 1818, the President, the House of Representatives, the Secretary
of State, the four "new" states, and the seventeen "old" states, all
clearly believed that the support of just thirteen states was
required to ratify the 13th Amendment. That being so, Virginia's
vote to ratify was legally sufficient to ratify the "missing'
Amendment in 1819 (and would still be so today).

Apparently persuaded by Dodge's various arguments and proofs that
the "missing" 13th Amendment had satisfied the Constitutional
requirements for ratification, Mr. Hartgrove (National Archives)
wrote back that Virginia had nevertheless failed to satisfy the
bureaucracy's procedural requirements for ratification:

"Under current legal provisions, the Archivist of the
United States is empowered to certify that he has in
his custody the correct number of state certificates
of ratification of a proposed constitutional amendment
to constitute its ratification by the United States of
America as a whole. In the nineteenth century, that
function was performed by the Secretary of State.
Clearly, the Secretary of State never received a
certificate of ratification of the title of nobility
amendment from the Commonwealth of Virginia, which is
why that amendment failed to become the Thirteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution."

This is an extraordinary admission.

Mr. Hartgrove implicitly concedes that the 13th Amendment was
ratified by Virginia and satisfied the Constitution's ratification
requirements. However, Hartgrove then insists that the ratification
was nevertheless justly denied because the Secretary of State was
not properly notified with a "certificate of ratification". In
other words, the government's last, best argument that the 13th
Amendment was not ratified boils down to this: Though the Amendment
satisfied Constitutional requirement for ratification, it is
nonetheless missing from our Constitution simply because a single,
official sheet of paper is missing in Washington. Mr. Hartgrove
implies that despite the fact that three-quarters of the States in
the Union voted to ratify an Amendment, the will of the legislators
and the people of this nation should be denied because somebody
screwed up and lost a single "certificate of ratification". This
"certificate" may be missing because either 1) Virginia failed to
file a proper notice; or 2) the notice was "lost in the mail; or 3)
the notice was lost, unrecorded, misplaced, or intentionally
destroyed, by some bureaucrat in Washington D.C.

This final excuse insults every American's political rights, but Mr.
Hartgrove nevertheless offers a glimmer of hope: If the National
Archives "received a certificate of ratification of the title of
nobility amendment from the Commonwealth of Virginia, we would
inform Congress and await further developments." In other words,
the issue of whether this 13th Amendment was ratified and is, or is
not, a legitimate Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, is not merely
a historical curiosity -- the ratification issue is still live.

But most importantly, Hartgrove implies that the only remaining
argument against the 13th Amendment's ratification is a procedural
error involving the absence of a "certificate of ratification".

Dodge countered Hartgrove's procedure argument by citing some of the
ratification procedures recorded for other states when the 13th
Amendment was being considered. He notes that according to the
Journal of the House of Representatives. 11th Congress, 2nd
Session, at p. 241, a "letter" (not a "certificate of ratification")
from the Governor of Ohio announcing Ohio's ratification was
submitted not to the Secretary of State but rather to the House of
Representatives where it "was read and ordered to lie on the table."
Likewise, "The Kentucky ratification was also returned to the House,
while Maryland's earlier ratification is not listed as having been
return to Congress."

The House Journal implies that since Ohio and Kentucky were not
required to notify the Secretary of State of their ratification
decisions, there was likewise no requirement that Virginia file a
"certificate of ratification" with the Secretary of State. Again,
despite arguments to the contrary, it appears that the "missing"
Amendment was Constitutionally ratified and should not be denied
because of some possible procedural

Each of Sen. Mitchell's and Mr. Hartgrove's arguments against
ratification have been overcome or badly weakened. Still, some of
the evidence supporting ratification is inferential; some of the
conclusions are only implied. But it's no wonder that there's such
an austere sprinkling of hard evidence surrounding this 13th
Amendment: According to The Gazette (5/10/91), the Library of
Congress has 349,402 un-catalogued rare books and 13.9 million un-
catalogued rare manuscripts. The evidence of ratification seems
tantalizingly close but remains buried in those masses of un-
catalogued documents, waiting to be found. It will take some luck
and some volunteers to uncover the final proof.

We have an Amendment that looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and
quacks like a duck. But because we have been unable to find the
eggshell from which it hatched in 1819, Sen. Mitchell and Mr.
Hartgrove insist we can't ... quite ... absolutely prove it's a
duck, and therefore, the government is under no obligation to
concede it's a duck.

Maybe so.

But if we can't prove it's a duck, they can't prove it's not. If
the proof of ratification is not quite conclusive, the evidence
against ratification is almost nonexistent, largely a function of
the government's refusal to acknowledge the proof.

We are left in the peculiar position of boys facing bullies in the
schoolyard. We show them proof that they should again include the
"missing" 13th Amendment on the Constitution; they sneer and jeer
and taunt us with cries of "make us".

Perhaps we shall. The debate goes on. The mystery continues to
unfold. The answer lies buried in the archives.

If you are close to a state archive or large library anywhere in the
USA, please search for editions of the U.S. Constitution printed
between 1819 and 1870. If you find more evidence of the "missing"
13th Amendment please contact

David Dodge,
POB 985,
Taos,New Mexico, 87571.

1) It's worth noting that Rick Donaldson, another researcher,
uncovered certified copies of the 1865 and 1867 editions of the
Colorado Civil Codes which also contain the missing Amendment.
Although these editions were stored in the Colorado state archive,
their existence was previously un-catalogued and unknown to the
Colorado archivists.

2) This raises a fantastic possibility. If there's insufficient
evidence that Virginia did ratify in 1819, there is no evidence that
Virginia did not. Therefore, since there was no time limit specified
when the Amendment was proposed, and since the government clearly
believed only Virginia's vote remained to be counted in the
ratification issue, the current state legislature of Virginia could
theoretically vote to ratify the Amendment, send the necessary
certificates to Washington, and thereby add the Amendment to the

The Stealing of America - War Powers Act and the Fed

Notice: I had this posted earlier, but accidently deleted it, so I am reposting it.


War & Emergency Powers Report


This page contains the complete text of the book "War and Emergency

Researched and written by:
Gene Schroder, Ph.D.
Alvin Jenkins
Jerry Russell
Ed Petrowsky
Russell Grieder
Darrell Schroder
Walter Marston
Lynn Bitner
Billy Schroder
Van Stafford
Fred Peters
Tinker Spain
Paul Bailey

Letters to our servants. They must be educated!

NATIONAL EMERGENCY: (as defined in Black's Law Dictionary)

A state of national crisis; a situation demanding immediate and
extraordinary national or federal action. Congress has made little or
no distinction between a "state of national emergency" and a "state of
war". Brown v. Bernstein, D.C.Pa., 49 F.Supp. 728, 732.

This report begins with a series of documents which are representative
(Exhibits 1 through 7), of the documents contained in this Report. We
will be quoting from in many cases, reports, Senate and Congressional
reports, hearings before National Emergency Committees, Presidential
Papers, Statutes at Large, and the United States Code.

Exhibit 8 is taken from a book written by Swisher called Constitutional
Development. Let's read the first paragraph. It says:

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

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

"The conflict known as the World War had ended as far as military
hostilities were concerned, but was not yet officially terminated. Most
of the war statutes were still in effect, many of the emergency
organizations were still in operation."

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

In 1933 (Exhibit 9), Congressman Beck, speaking from the Congressional
Record, states:

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

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

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

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

In 1973, in Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 10), the first sentence reads:

"Since March the 9th, 1933, the United States has been in a state of
declared national emergency."

Let's go back to Exhibit 9 just before this. What did that say?
It says that if a national emergency is declared, there is no
Constitution. Now, let us return to Exhibit 10. Since March
the 9th of 1933, the United States has been, in fact, in a state
of declared national emergency.

Referring to the middle of this exhibit:

"This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to
rule the country without reference to normal constitutional processes.
Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize
property; organize and control the means of production; seize
commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize
and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation
of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular
ways, control the lives of all American citizens" and this situation has
continued uninterrupted since March the 9th of 1933.

In the introduction to Senate Report 93-549:

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

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

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

The introduction continues:

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

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

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

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

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

In the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, it says:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in
actual service in time of War or public danger..."

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

But let us recall that, it says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

If that was, in fact, the case, and we are under a war emergency in this
country, then there should be evidence of that war emergency in the
current law that exists today. That means we should be able to go to
the federal code known as the USC or United States Code, and find that
statute, that law, in existence. And if we went to the library today
and picked up a copy of 12 USC and went to Section 95 (b), we will find
a law which states:

"The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations
heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the
President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since
March the 4th, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by Subsection
(b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6th, 1917, as amended [12 USCS
Sec. 95a], are hereby approved and confirmed. (Mar. 9, 1933, c. 1, Title
I, Sec. 1, 48 Stat. 1.)."

Now, what does this mean? It means that everything the President or the
Secretary of the Treasury has done since March the 4th of 1933, or
anything that the President or the Secretary of the Treasury is
hereafter going to do, is automatically approved and confirmed.
Referring back to Exhibit 10, let us remember that, according to the
Congressional Record of 1973, the United States has been in a state of
national emergency since 1933. Then we realize that 12 USC, Section 95
(b) is current law. This is the law that exists over this United
States this moment.

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

On March the 4th of 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was inaugurated as
President of the United States. Referring to his inaugural address,
which was given at a time when the country was in the throes of the
Great Depression, we read (Exhibit 16):

"I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures
that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require.
These measures, or such other measures as the Congress may build out of
its experience and wisdom, I shall seek, within my constitutional
authority, to bring to speedy adoption. But in the event that the
Congress shall fall to take one of these two courses, and in the event
that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the
clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the
Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis broad
Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the
power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign

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

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

In the enabling portion of that Act, it states:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress hereby
declares that a serious emergency exists and that it is imperatively
necessary speedily to put into effect remedies of uniform national

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

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

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

"The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations
heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the
President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since
March the 4th, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by subdivision
(b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are hereby
approved and confirmed."

Where have we read those words before?

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

As you may remember, the authority to do this is conferred by Subsection
(b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended. What was
the authority which was used to declare and enact the emergency in this
Act? If we look at the Act of October 6, 1917 (Exhibit 18), we see that
at the top right-hand part of the page, it states that this was:

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

By the year 1917, the United States was involved in World War 1; at that
point, it was recognized that there were probably enemies of the United
States, or allies of enemies of the United States, living within the
continental borders of our nation in a time of war. Therefore, Congress
passed this act which identified who could be declared enemies of the
United States, and, in this act, we gave the government total authority
over those enemies to do with as it saw fit. We also see, however, in
Section 2, Subdivision (c) in the middle, and again at the bottom of the

"... other than citizens of the United States."

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

Section 5 (b) of the same act (Exhibit 19), states:

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

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

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

In Section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933 (Exhibit 17), "Subdivision (b)
of Section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. L. 411), as
amended, is hereby amended to read as follows;"

So we see that they are now going to amend Section 5 (b). Now
let's see how it reads after it's amended. The amended version of
Section 5 (b) reads (emphasis added): "During time of war or during any
other period of national emergency declared by the President, the
President may, through any agency that be may designate, or otherwise,
investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as
be may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in
foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking
institutions as defined by the President and export, hoarding, melting,
or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, by any
person within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction

What just happened? At as far as commercial, monetary or business
transactions were concerned, the people of the United States were no
longer differentiated from any other enemy of the United States. We had
lost that crucial distinction. Comparing Exhibit 17 with Exhibit 19, we
can see that the phrase which excluded transactions executed wholly
within the United States has been removed from the amended version of
Section 5 (b) of the Act of March 9, 1933, Section 2, and replaced with
"by any person within the United States or anyplace subject to the
jurisdiction thereof'. All monetary transactions, whether domestic or
international in scope, were now placed at the whim of the President of
the United States through the authority given to him by the Trading with
the Enemy Act.

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

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

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

The people of the United States were now subject to the power of the
Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6,1917, as amended. For the
purposes of all commercial, monetary, and, in effect, all business
transactions. "We the People", became the same as the enemy, and were
treated no differently. There was no longer any distinction.

It is important here to note that, in the Acts of October 6, 1917 and
March 9, 1933, it states: "during times of war or during any other
national emergency declared by the President...". So we now see that the
war powers not only included a period of war, but also a period of
"national emergency" as defined by the President of the United States.
When either of these two situations occur, the President may, "through
any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate or
prohibit under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe by means
of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange,
transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as
defined by the President and export, boarding, melting or earmarking of
gold or silver coin or bullion or currency by any person within the
United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

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

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

Our Congress wrote that in the year 1973.

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

"The Trading With the Enemy Act, originally and as amended, is strictly
a war measure, and finds its sanction in the provision empowering
Congress "to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make
rules concerning captures on land and water" Const. Art. 1, Sect. 8,
c1. 11. P.241".

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

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

"Every species of intercourse with the enemy is illegal. This
prohibition is not limited to mere commercial intercourse." This is the
case of The Rapid (1814). Additionally, "No contract is considered as
valid between enemies, at least so far as to give them a remedy in the
courts of either government, and they have, in the language of the civil
law, no ability to sustain a persona standi in judicio". In other words,
they have no personal lights at law in court. This is the case of The
Julia (1813).

In the next case, the case of The Sally (1814), we read the words: "By
the general law of prize, property engaged in an illegal intercourse
with the enemy is deemed enemy property. It is of no consequence whether
it belong to an ally or to a citizen; the illegal traffic stamps it with
the hostile character, and attaches to it all the penal consequences of
enemy ownership."

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

Again from the memorandum: "The produce of the soil of the hostile
territory, as well as other property engaged in the commerce of the
hostile power, as the source of its wealth and strength, are always
regarded as legitimate prize, without regard to the domicile of the

From the case of The William Bagaley (1866): "In general, during war,
contracts with, or powers of attorney or agency from, the enemy executed
after outbreak of war are illegal and void; contracts entered into with
the enemy prior to the war are either suspended or are absolutely
terminated; partnerships with an enemy are dissolved; powers of attorney
from the enemy, with certain exceptions, lapse; payments to the enemy
(except to agents in the United States appointed prior to the war and
confirmed since the war) are illegal and void; all rights of an enemy to
sue in the courts are suspended."

From Senate Report No. 113, in which we find An Act to Define, Regulate,
and Punish Trading with the Enemy, and For Other Purposes, we read: "The
trade or commerce regulated or prohibited is defined in Subsections (a),
(b), (c), (d) and (e), page 4. This trade covers almost every
imaginable transaction, and is forbidden and made unlawful except when
allowed under the form of licenses issued by the Secretary of Commerce
(p. 4, sec. 3, line 18). This authorization of trading under licenses
constitutes the principal modification of the rule of international law
forbidding trade between the citizens of belligerents, for the power to
grant such licenses, and therefore exemption from the operation of law,
is given by the bill."

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

That was the first case we looked at, wasn't it? So once we were
declared enemies, all intercourse became illegal for us. The only way
we could now do business or any type of legal intercourse was to obtain
permission from our government by means of a license. We are certainly
required to have a Social Security Card, which is a license to work, and
a Drivers License, which gives the government the ability to restrict
travel; all business in which we engage ourselves requires us to have a
license, does it not?

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

This point of law is important to keep in mind, for it authorizes the
temporary takeover of enemy property. The question is: Once the war
terminates, the property must be returned, mustn't it?

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

Reading from Senate Document No. 43, "Contracts Payable in Gold" written
in 1933: "The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State;
individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of government, i. e.,
law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and
subordinate to the necessities of the State."

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

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

That is the peacetime clause, isn't it? Further (emphasis added),
"Extraordinary and unforeseen occasions arise, however, beyond all
doubt, in cases of extreme necessity in time of war or of immediate and
impending public danger, in which private property may be impressed into
the public service, or may be seized or appropriated to public use, or
may even be destroyed without the consent of the owner..." This quote,
and indeed this case, provides a vivid frustration of the potential
power of the government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reading again from the Federal Reserve Board resolution, we find a
proposal for an executive order, to be worded as follows:

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

Now, in any normal usage of the American language, the standard accepted
meaning of a series of three asterisks after a quotation means that what
follows also must be quoted exactly, doesn't it? If it's not, that's a
fraudulent use of the American language. At that point where that, ***
" began, what did the original Act of October 6, 1917, say?

Referring back, we find that the remainder of Section 5 (b) of the Act
of October 6, 1917 says: "(other than credits relating solely to
transactions to be executed wholly within the United States)."

This portion of Section 5 (b) specifically prohibited the government
from taking control of We, the People's money and transactions, didn't
it? However, let us now read the remainder of Section 5 (b) of the Act
of October 6, 1917, as amended on March 9, 1933:

"... by any person within the United States or any place subject to the
Jurisdiction thereof."

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

Further, in the next section of the Federal Reserve Board's proposal, we
find that anyone violating any provision of this act will be fined not
more than $10,000.00, or imprisoned for not more than ten years, or
both. A severe enough penalty at any time, but one made all the more
harsh by the economic conditions in which most Americans found
themselves at the time. And where were these alterations and amendments
to be found?

Not from the government itself, initially; no, they are first to
be found in a proposal from the Federal Reserve Board of New
York, a banking institution.

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

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

On the next day, March 6, 1933, President Roosevelt issued Proclamation
2039. "Whereas there have been heavy and unwarranted withdrawals of
gold and currency from our banking institutions for the purpose of

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

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

Let us now go on to the middle of Proclamation 2039, at the top of the
next page, Exhibit 33. In reading from Exhibit 33, we find the

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

If we return to 48 Statute 1, Title 1, Section 1,
we find that the amended Section 5 (b) with its added phrase:
"by any person within the United States or any
place subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

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

"Whereas, on March 6, 1933, I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the
United States of America, by Proclamation declared the existence of a
national emergency and proclaimed a bank holiday... "
We see that Roosevelt declared a national emergency and a bank
holiday. Let's read on:

"Whereas, under the Act of March 9, 1933, all Proclamations heretofore
or hereafter issued by the President pursuant to the authority conferred
by section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are approved
and confirmed;"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Referring to the Public Papers of Herbert Hoover:

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

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

Going now to another section of 48 Statute 1:

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

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

From the Roosevelt Papers:

"During this banking holiday it was at first believed that some form of
scrip or emergency currency would be necessary for the conduct of
ordinary business. We knew that it would be essential when the banks
reopened to have an adequate supply of currency to meet all possible
demands of depositors.

Consideration was given by government officials and various government
officials and various local agencies to the advisability of issuing
clearinghouse certificates or some similar form of local emergency
currency. On March 7, 1933, the Secretary of the Treasury issued a
regulation authorizing clearing houses to issue demand certificates
against sound assets of the banking institutions, but this authority was
not to become effective until March 10th. In many cities, the printing
of these certificates was actually begun, but after the passage of the
Emergency Banking Relief Act of March 9, 1933 (48 Stat. 1), it became
evident that they would not be needed, because the Act made possible the
issue of the necessary amount of emergency currency in the form of
Federal Reserve banknotes which could be based on any sound assets owned
by banks."

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

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

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

Title 4 goes on: "or (b) of my notes, drafts, bills of exchange or
bankers' acceptances..." What's a note? If you go to the bank and sign
a note on your home, that's a note, isn't it? A note is a private
obligation upon We, the People. And if the Federal Reserve Bank deposits
either (a) public and/or (b) private obligation of We, the People, with
the Treasury, the Comptroller of the currency will issue this
circulating note endorsed in blank, duly registered and countersigned,
an emergency currency based on the (a) public and/or (b) private
obligations of the people of the United States.

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

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

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

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

Chairman Steagall's response to Congressman McFadden's question, again
from the Congressional Record: "This provision is for the issuance of
Federal Reserve bank notes; and not for Federal Reserve notes; and the
security back of it is the obligations, notes, drafts, bills of
exchange, bank acceptances, outlined in the section to which the
gentleman has referred."

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

Congressman McFadden then questioned, "Then the new circulation is to be
Federal Reserve bank notes and not Federal Reserve notes. Is that

Mr. Steagall replied, "Insofar as the provisions of this section are
concerned, yes."

Does that sound familiar?

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

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

Who is the collateral? We are chattel, aren't we? We have no rights.
Our rights were suspended along with the Constitution. We became
chattel property to the corporate government, our transactions and
obligations the collateral for the issuance of Federal Reserve bank

Congressman Patman, speaking from the Congressional Record: "The money
will be worth l00 cents on the dollar because it is backed by the credit
of the Nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes and other
property of all the people in the Nation." It now is no wonder that
credit became so available after the Depression. It was needed to back
our monetary system. Our debts, our obligations, our homes, our jobs...
we were now slaves for the system.

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

The Federal Reserve was taken over by the Treasury. The Treasury holds
the assets. We are the collateral... ourselves and our property.

To summarize briefly: On March 9, 1933 the American people in all their
domestic, daily, and commercial transactions became the same as the
enemy. The President of the United States, through licenses or any
other form, was given the power to regulate and control the actions of
enemies. He made We, the People, chattel property; he seized our gold,
our property and our rights; and he suspended the Constitution. And we
know that current law, to this day, says that all proclamations issued
heretofore or hereafter by the President or the Secretary of the
Treasury are approved and confirmed by Congress. Pretty broad, sweeping
approval to be automatic, wouldn't you agree?

On March 11, 1933, President Roosevelt, in his first radio "Fireside
Chat," makes the following statement: "The Secretary of the Treasury
will issue licenses to banks which are members of the Federal Reserve
system, whether national bank or state, located in each of the 12
Federal Reserve bank cities, to open Monday morning." It was by this
action that the Treasury took over the banking system.

Black's Law Dictionary defines the Bank Holiday of 1933 in the following

"Presidential Proclamations No. 2039, issued March 6, 1933, and No.
2040, issued March 9, 1933, temporarily suspended banking transactions
by member banks of the Federal Reserve System. Normal banking functions
were resumed on March 13, subject to certain restrictions. The first
proclamation, it was held, had no authority in law until the passage on
March 9, 1933, of a ratifying act (12 U.S.C.A. Sect.). Anthony v. Bank
of Wiggins, 183 Miss. 883, 184 So. 626. The present law forbids member
banks of the Federal Reserve System to transact banking business, except
under regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury, during an emergency
proclaimed by the President. 12 U. S. C. A. Sect. 95"

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

From the Agricultural Adjustment Act of May 12, 1933: "To issue licenses
permitting processors, associations of producers and others to engage in
the handling, in the current of interstate or foreign commerce, of any
agricultural commodity or product thereof."

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

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

Now, we know that they took over all contracts: "No contract is
considered as valid as between enemies, at least so far as to give them
a remedy in the courts of law of either government, and they have, in
the language of civil law, no ability to sustain a persona standi in

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

Referring to House Joint Resolution 192 (June 5, 1933): "That (a) every
provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which
purports to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a
particular- kind of coin or currency, or in an amount of money of the
United States measured thereby is declared to be against public policy;
and no such policy shall be contained in or made with respect to any
obligation hereafter incurred."

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

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

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

Reading from the Agricultural Adjustment Act, May the 12th, Declaration
of Emergency: "That the present acute economic emergency being in part
the consequence of a severe and increasing disparity between the prices
of agriculture and other commodities, which disparity bas largely
destroyed the purchasing power of farmers for industrial products, has
broken down the orderly exchange of commodities, and has seriously
impaired the agricultural assets supporting the national credit
structure, it is hereby declared that these conditions in the basic
industry of agriculture have affected transactions in agricultural
commodities with a national public interest, have burdened and
obstructed the normal currents of commerce in such commodities and
rendered imperative the immediate enactment of Title 1 of this act."

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

Continuing with the Agricultural Adjustment Act, Declaration of
Emergency: "It is hereby declared to the public policy of
Congress ..."

Referring now back to Prize Cases (1862) (2 Black, 674): "But in
defining the meaning of the term 'enemies' property,' we will be led
into error if we refer to Fleta or Lord Coke for their definition of the
word, 'enemy'. It is a technical phrase peculiar to prize courts, and
depends upon principles of public policy as distinguished from the
common law."

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

All the government needs to continue is to have public opinion on their
side. If public opinion can be kept, in sufficient degree, on the side
of the government, statutes, laws and bills can continue to be passed.
The Constitution has no meaning. The Constitution is suspended. It has
been for 60 years. We're not under law. Law has been abolished.
We're under a system of public policy, (War Powers).

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

From Section 93-549, (emphasis added): "Under this procedure we retain
Government by law, special, temporary law, perhaps, but law nonetheless.
The public may know the extent and the limitations of the powers that
can be asserted, and the persons affected may be informed by the statute
of their rights and their duties."

If you have any rights, the only reason you have them is because they
have been statutorily declared, and your duties well spelled out, and if
you violate the orders of those statutes, you will be charged, not with
a crime, but with an offense.

Again from 93-549, from the words of Mr. Katzenbach: "My recollection is
that almost every executive order ever issued straddles on several
grounds, but it almost always includes the Trading With the Enemy Act
because the language of that act Is so broad, it would 'justify almost

Speaking on the subject of a challenge to the Act by the people, Justice
Clark then says, "Most difficult from a standpoint of standing to
sue. The Court, you might say, has enlarged the standing rule
in favor of the litigant. But I don't think it has reached the
point, presently, that would permit many such cases to be
litigated to the merits."

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

No persona standi n judicio, - no personal standing in the courts.

Continuing with Senate Report 93-549:

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

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

In Senate Report 93-549, we find a quote from Senator Church: "If the
President can create crimes by fiat and without congressional approval,
our system is not much different from that of the Communists, which
allegedly threatens our existence." We see on this same document, at the
bottom right-hand side of the page, as a Title, the words,

"Enormous Scope of Powers... A Time Bomb".

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

Most people might not look to agriculture to provide them with this type
of information. But let us look at Title III of the Agricultural
Adjustment Act, which is also called the Emergency Farm Mortgage Act of
1933 (Exhibit 52):

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

From Section 43 of Exhibit 52:

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

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

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

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

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

There was not even a Congress in session for six weeks.

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

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

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

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

In Senate Report 93-549, we find the following statement from Congress:
"Furthermore, it would be largely futile task unless we have the
President's active collaboration. Having delegated this authority to
the President in ways that permit him to determine how long it shall
continue, simply through the device of keeping emergency declarations
alive - we now find ourselves in a position where we cannot reclaim the
power without the President's acquiescence. We are unable to terminate
these declarations without the President's signature, so we need a large
measure of Presidential cooperation".

It appears that no president has been willing to give up this
extraordinary power, and, if they will not sign the termination
proclamation, the access to, and usage of, extraordinary powers does not
terminate. At least, it has not terminated for over 60 years.

Now, that's no definite indication that a President from Bill Clinton on
might not eventually sign the termination proclamation, but 60 years of
experience would lead one to doubt that day will ever come by itself But
the question now to ask is this: How many times have We, the People,
asked the President to terminate his access to extraordinary powers, or
the situation on which it is based, the declared national emergency?
Who has ever demanded that this be done? How many of us even knew that
it had been done? And, without the knowledge contained in this report,
how long do you think the blindness of the American public to this
situation would have continued, and with it the abolishment of the
Constitution? But we're not quite as in the dark as we were, are we?

In Senate Report 93-549, we find the following statement from Senator
Church: "These powers, if exercised, would confer upon the President
total authority to do anything he pleased."

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

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

Now, a quote from an exclusive reply written May 21, 1973, by the
Attorney General of the United States regarding studies undertaken by
the Justice Department on the question of the termination of the
standing national emergency: "As a consequence, a "national emergency"
is now a practical necessity in order to carry out what has become the
regular and normal method of governmental actions. What were intended
by Congress as delegations of power to be used only in the most extreme
situations, and for the most limited duration's, have become everyday
powers, and a state of "emergency" has become a permanent condition."

From United States v. Butler (Supreme Court, 1935): "A tax, in the
general understanding and in the strict Constitutional sense, is an
exaction for the support of government; the term does not connote the
expropriation of money from one group to be expended for another, as a
necessary means in a plan of regulation, such as the plan for regulating
agricultural production set up in the Agricultural Adjustment Act."
What is being said here is that a tax can only be an exaction
for the support of government, not for an expropriation from one
group for the use of another. That would be socialism, wouldn't

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

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

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

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

The United States Supreme Court ruled the New Deal, the nationalization,
unconstitutional in the Agricultural Adjustment Act and they turned it
down flat. The Supreme Court declared it to be unconstitutional. They
said, in effect, "You're turning the federal government into an
uncontrolled police state, exercising uncontrolled police power." What
did Roosevelt do next? He stacked the Supreme Court, didn't he? And in
1937, United States v. Butler was overturned.

From the 65th Congress, 1st Session Doc. 87, under the section entitled
Constitutional Sources of Laws of War, Page 7, Clause II, we find: "The
existence of war and the restoration of peace are to be determined by
the political department of the government, and such determination is
binding and conclusive upon the courts, and deprives the courts of the
power of hearing proof and determining as a question of fact either that
war exists or has ceased to exist."

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

The courts were deprived of the Constitution. They were deprived of the
common law. There are now courts of prize over the enemies, and we have
no persona standi in judicio. We have no personal standing under the
law. Also from the 65th Congress, under the section entitled
Constitutional Sources of Laws of War, we find: "When the sovereign
authority shall choose to bring it into operation, the judicial
department must give effect to its will. But until that will shall be
expressed, no power of condemnation can exist in the court."

From Senate Report 93-549: "Just how effective a limitation on crisis
action this makes of the court is hard to say. In light of the recent
war, the court today would seem to be a fairly harmless observer of the
emergency activities of the President and Congress. It is highly
unlikely that the separation of powers and the 10th Amendment will be
called upon again to hamstring the efforts of the government to deal
resolutely with a serious national emergency."

So much for our Constitutional system of checks and balances. And from
that same Senate Report, in the section entitled, "Emergency
Administration": "Organizationally, in dealing with the depression, it
was Roosevelt's general policy to assign new, emergency functions to
newly created agencies, rather than to already existing departments."
Thus, thousands of "temporary" emergency agencies, are now sitting out
there with emergency functions to rule us in all cases whatsoever.

Finally, let us look briefly at the courts, specifically with regard to
the question of "booty". The following definition of the term, "prize"
is to be found in Bouvier's Law Dictionary: "Goods taken on land from a
public enemy are called booty; and the distinction between a prize and
booty consists in this, that the former is taken at sea and the latter
on land."

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

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

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

Consequently, the federal government had a standing prize court, due to
the fact that it had a standing navy, whether in times of peace or war.
But in times of peace, there could be no federal police power over the
continental United States, because there was to be no army.

From the report The Law of Civil Government in Territory Subject to
Military Occupation by Military Forces of the United States, published
by order of the Secretary of War in 1902, under the heading entitled The
Confiscation of Private Property of Enemies in War, comes the following
quote: "4. Should the President desire to utilize the services of the
Federal courts of the United States in promoting this purpose or
military undertaking, since these courts derive their jurisdiction from
Congress and do not constitute a part of the military establishment,
they must secure from Congress the necessary action to confer such
jurisdiction upon said courts."

This means that, if the government is going to confiscate property
within the continental United States on the land (booty), it must obtain
statutory authority. In this same section, we find the following words:
"5. The laws and usage's of war make a distinction between enemies'
property captured on the sea and property captured on land. The
jurisdiction of the courts of the United States over property captured
at sea is held not to attach to property captured on land in the absence
of Congressional action."

There is no standing prize court over the land. Once war is declared,
Congress must give jurisdiction to particular courts over captures on
the land by positive Congressional action. To continue with: "The right
of confiscation is a sovereign right. In times of peace, the exercise of
this right is limited and controlled by the domestic Constitution and
institutions of the government. In times of war, when the right is
exercised against enemies' property as a war measure, such right becomes
a belligerent right, and as such is not subject to the restrictions
imposed by domestic institutions, but is regulated and controlled by the
laws and usage's of war."

So we see that our government can operate in two capacities:

(a) in its sovereign peacetime capacity, with the limitations placed
upon it by the Constitution and restrictions placed upon it by We, the
People, or

(b) in a wartime capacity, where it may operate in its belligerent
capacity governed not by the Constitution, but only by the laws of war.

In Section 17 of the Act of October 6, 1917, the Trading With the Enemy
Act: "That the district courts of the United States are hereby given
jurisdiction to make and enter all such rules as to notice and
otherwise; and all such orders and decrees; and to issue such process as
may be necessary and proper in the premises to enforce the provisions of
this act."

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

In 1934 Congress passed an Act merging equity and law abolishing common
law. This Act, known as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures Act, was
not to come into effect until 6 months after the letter of transmittal
from the Supreme Court to Congress. The Supreme Court refused
transmittal and the transmittal did not occur until Franklin D.
Roosevelt stacked the Supreme Court in 1938.

But on March the 9th of 1933, the American people were declared to be
the public enemy under the amended version of the Trading With the Enemy
Act. What jurisdiction were We, the People, then placed under? We were
now the booty jurisdiction given to the district courts by Congress.

It was no longer be necessary, or of any value at all, to bring the
Constitution of the United States with us upon entering a courtroom, for
that court was no longer a court of common law, but a tribunal under
wartime booty jurisdiction. Take a look at the American flag in most
American courtrooms. The gold fringe around our flag designates
Admiralty jurisdiction.

Executive Order No. 11677 issued by President Richard M. Nixon August 1,
1972 states: "Continuing the Regulation of Exports; By virtue of the
authority vested in the President by the Constitution and statutes of
the United States, including Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6,
1917, as amended (12 U. S. C. 95a, and in view of the continued
existence of the national emergencies..." Later, in the same Executive
Order, we find the following: "...under the authority vested in me as
President of the United States by Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6,
1917, as amended (12 U. S. C. 95a..."

Section 5(b) certainly seems to be an one-sided support for Presidential
authority, doesn't it? Surely the reason for this can be found by the
words of Mr. Katzenbach in Senate Report 93-549: "My recollection is
that almost every executive order ever issued straddles on several
grounds, but it almost always includes the Trading With the Enemy Act
because the language of that act is so broad, it would justify almost

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

Has the termination of the national emergency ever been considered? In
Public Law 94412, September 14, 1976, we find that Congress had finally
finished their exhaustive study on the national emergencies, and the
words of their findings were that they would terminate the existing
national emergencies. We should be able to heave a sigh of relief at
this decision, for with the termination of the national emergencies will
come the corresponding termination of extraordinary Presidential power,
won't it? But yet we have learned two difficult lessons: that we are
still in the national emergency, and that power, once grasped, is
difficult to let go. And so now it should come as no surprise when we
read, in the last section of the Act, Section 502, the following words:

"(a): The provisions of this act shall not apply to the following
provisions of law, the powers and authorities conferred thereby and
actions taken thereunder (1) Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6,1917,
as amended (12 U. S. C. 95a; 50 U. S. C. App. 5b)"

The bleak reality is, the situation has not changed at all. The alarming
situation in which We, the People, find ourselves today causes us to
think back to a time over two hundred years ago in our nation's history
when our forefathers were also laboring under the burden of governmental
usurpation of individual rights. Their response, written in 1774, two
years before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, to the
attempts of Great Britain to retain extraordinary powers it had held
during a time of war became known as the "Declaration of Rights." And
in that document, we find these words: "Whereas, since the close of the
last war, the British Parliament, claiming a power of right to bind the
people of America, by statute, in all cases whatsoever, hath in some
acts expressly imposed taxes on them. and in others, under various
pretenses, but in fact for the purpose of raising a revenue, hath
imposed rates and duties payable in these colonies established a board
of commissioners, with unconstitutional powers, and extended the
jurisdiction of the courts of admiralty, not only for collecting the
said duties, but for the trial of causes merely arising within the body
of a county."

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

Article 3, Section 3, of our Constitution states:

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

Is the Act of March 9, 1933, treason? That would be for the common law
courts to decide. At this point in our nation's history, the point is
moot, for common law, and indeed the Constitution itself, do not operate
or exist at present. Whether governmental acts of theft of the nation's
money, the citizens' property, and American liberty as an ideal and a
reality which have occurred since 1933 is treason against the people of
the United States, as the term is defined by the Constitution of the
United States cannot even be determined or argued in the legal sense
until the Constitution itself is reestablished. For our part, however,
we firmly believe that, "by their fruits ye shall know them", and on
that authority we rest our case.


As you have just witnessed, the United States of America continues to
exist in a governmentally ordained state of national emergency. Under
such a state of emergency, our Constitution has been set aside,
ostensibly for the public good, until the emergency is canceled.

But, as experience painfully shows, it has not been to the public's good
that our government has used its unrestricted power, unhampered by the
Constitution's restraining force. The governmental edicts and actions
over the past six decades have led us to the desperate state in which we
find ourselves today. Besieged on every side, corroding from within,
frightened and in despair, we as a nation are being torn asunder.

There is, a national emergency today, one of life and death
proportions, but it is not the emergency used by our government to
continue its abuse of power. It is this very abuse, this unbridled rape
of the American spirit, that is the crux of the emergency we are in
today. But this true emergency cannot be cured by setting aside the
Constitution; no, it can only be controlled by returning to the laws of
God and Country which have been stolen from us by those in whom we
placed our trust to protect the national interest.

We are a nation whose government is based upon those immortal
words, "a government of the people, by the people, for the
people". One has only to walk down the highways and byways of
this great land to know all too well that this is not a
government of the people or for the people. Actions speak
louder than words, and the actions taken over the past decades
have resulted in an unparalleled decline of American economic
and political power, and a weakening of American values and

This is not a crisis in which the taking up of arms is the answer. No,
this is a situation in which we firmly believe that the pen will be
mightier than the sword. That a state of emergency exists cannot be
disputed. That the emergency is one which should concern every American
alive cannot be denied. That we must stand together, laying aside our
individual differences, to fight the common foe, is of vital importance,
for the time to act is now. But this is not a battle of swords, but of
knowledge, for only when the deception is exposed to the light of day
can the healing process begin.

Truth stands tall in the light of day, and it is the truth we bring to
you today. Let it be known and understood that it is our intention to
make this information available to every concerned American who desires
to know the true State of the Union. This is an undertaking of immense
proportions, but we have dedicated ourselves to bringing this
information to the light of day, and with the help of "We, the People",
we will be successful in our efforts.

Every American who is thankful for the opportunity to call themselves
American must also accept the responsibility that comes with that title.
We the People have not only a right, but a responsibility to each other
and to those who have gone before us to learn what our government is
doing, and to judge whether actions taken benefit the people who will
bear the costs. We have been in the dark long enough, content to rest
on our past glories and let the government take its course. In a way,
we have been like children, trusting in our parents to act in our best
interest. But as we have too frequently seen in the nightly news, not
all parents have their children's best interest at heart.

The time has come for us to take off our blinders and accept reality,
for the time of national reckoning has arrived. The majority of our
elected and appointed officials are no more responsible for the current
state of affairs than are we. The strings are being manipulated at far
higher levels than the positions most officials occupy. They are
working with little knowledge or authority, trying to control problems
far bigger than even they realize. Their programs and actions may seek
to cure the symptoms, but the time has now come to attack the disease.
They are no more guilty than we are, nor will they be any more protected
when the nation collapses on us all.

If we blame them for this national emergency, we must also truly blame
ourselves, for it is "We the People" to whom this nation was given and
whose duty it was to keep a watchful eye on those who direct the sails
of the ship of state. We have, however, fallen asleep, and while we
were dreaming the American dream, a band of pirates stole the
Constitution and put our people into slavery.

And since that terrible day when our Constitution was cast aside, not
one President or Congress, nor one Supreme Court justice has been able
or willing to return it to its rightful owners. Given the current state
of the union, there is no reason to expect this situation to change
unless we ourselves cause it to be so.

Let us put the childish emotions of pity and self-deception away, stand
up, stand together and fight back. Now is the time to stop dreaming,
and start the long work before us. Now is the time to turn back to the
principles and ideals on which this nation was founded, the strong
foundation from which our national identity springs.

When does tolerance become anarchy? When does protection become slavery?
When is enough enough? Now is when - here and now.

Now is the time to return to the laws set forth by God, and throw off
these chains of ignorance and bondage which grip our nation to the point
of death. Let us return to the source, the standard of excellence set
for us long ago. Our message to Congress and all elected and appointed
officials must be, "Let my people go!", for we are all laboring under a
system which will eventually crush us, regardless of our religion, our
sex, or the color of our skin.

We must let those at all levels of governmental authority know that we
have learned of the deception which lies at the core of our national
malaise. We must tell them in no uncertain terms that we will tolerate
this great lie no longer, and we must put them on notice that we expect
them to resign if they have not the courage and the resolve to help this
nation in its hour of need.

We have been fools long enough. No matter how long after the date you
read this report, start each and every week without fail to give a copy
of this information to at least one person you know. We also ask you to
write a letter to Congress telling them to "Let our People go", or you
can use the form letter you will find enclosed in the report.

We must let our elected officials know that we expect them as servants
of the people to help us reestablish law and order and restore our
national pride. They must, repeal proclamation 2039, 2040, and Title 12
USC 95(a) and 95(b), thereby canceling the National Emergency, and
reestablish the Constitution of this nation.

Now is the time for excellence of action. We demand it and will accept
nothing less. This is our country, to protect and defend, no matter the
cost. To do nothing out of fear or apathy is exactly what those in
power are hoping for, for it is ignorance and apathy that the darkness
likes best. We must not be a party to the darkness enveloping our
nation any longer. We must come into the light, and give our every drop
of blood, sweat and tears to bring our nation back with us.

We must acknowledge that if we do nothing, if we are not willing to act
now and act boldly, without fear but with faith and a firm resolve, our
freedom to act, at all may soon be taken away altogether. New bills,
new laws are being presented dally which will effectively serve to
tighten the chains of bondage already encircling this nation.

My friends, we are not going into slavery, we are already there. Make no
mistake those in power are already tightening the chains, but they are
doing so slowly, quietly and with great caution, for fear of awakening
the slumbering lion which is the voice of the American people. There is
yet still time for us to slip loose the chains which bind us, and for us
to bring about the restoration of this nation.

If we act, if we make our concerns known and shout out our refusal to
accept the future which has been planned for us by those who hold no
allegiance to this great land of ours, we can yet demand and see come to
pass the day when the state of emergency is canceled and the
Constitution is restored to her rightful place as the watchdog of those
for whom absolute power corrupts absolutely. If we repent of our
ignorance and our apathy, and return to the God-given laws on which this
nation was founded, we may yet be free.

We will continue to hold meetings and offer this information until
everyone in America has had an opportunity to hear it and we have set
our nation free. We will not tolerate less. We are Americans and that
means far more than most of us realize.

If it first it seems you are working alone, do not give up, for as this
information spreads across the land to the great cities and small towns,
you will find yourself in excellent company. You already are as only
one, for behind you stand all the heroes of our history who fought and
died to keep this nation free.

Again, we must stress that we are not asking you to pick up guns; in
fact, we implore you not to, no matter how angry the news of this
deception has made you. Turn your anger into a steely resolve, a fierce
determination not to give up until the battle has been won. We are not
asking you for lots of money; that's their game, the "almighty dollar".
It is the substitution of wealth and possessions for integrity and honor
that helped get us into this true state of emergency in which we find
ourselves now. We are not asking you for more time than you can give,
although we do ask you to give what time you can to get this information

What we ask from you is your commitment to stand with those around you
to help us restore this nation to her rightful place in history, both
that written and that yet to be told. Abraham Lincoln once said, "We
the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts -
not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert
the Constitution". We must stand together now in this, our national
hour of need. As the United States Supreme Court once said, "It is not
the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into
error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from
falling into error".

Each individual, their attitudes and actions, forges their own special
link in the great chain of history. Now is the time to add to that
precious inheritance of honor and duty which has kept America alive
because the choices we make and the actions we take today are a part of
history as well as our future.

The vision for America has not died; the "land of the free and the home
of the brave" still exists. There is still time to turn the tide for
this great land, but we must join together to make it happen. We have a
debt of honor to the past and the future, a call to glory to rescue out
homeland from the hands of those who would see her fall. We cannot, we
must not fail.

93D CONGRESS 1st Session Senate Report No. 93-549




NOVEMBER 19, 1973



--------------------- end title page ---------------------------



WILLIAM G. MILLER, Staff Director
THOMAS A. DINE, Professional Staff


--------------------- end inside cover --------------------------


Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state
of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect
four presidentially proclaimed states of national emergency: In
addition to the national emergency declared by President
Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency
proclaimed by President Truman on December 16, 1950, during the
Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by
President Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971.

These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal
law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President
extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which
affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-
encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together,
confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to
normal constitutional processes.

Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President
may: seize property; organize and control the means of
production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad;
institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and
communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise;
restrict travel; and in a plethora of particular ways, control
the lives of all American citizens.


And if you don't think that National Emergencies are still in
effect (besides the ones mentioned in the previous section), take
a look at this from the desk of President Clinton:

From ucsu!boulder!agate!!zaphod.mps.ohio-!!uunet!!!ai-
lab!ai-lab!not-for-mail Fri May 21 05:57:52 MDT 1993
Article: 115926 of talk.politics.misc
Path: ucsu!boulder!agate!!zaphod.mps.ohio-!!uunet!!!ai-
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (The White House)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: CLINTON: Iranian Assets 5.14.93
Date: 15 May 1993 04:37:17 -0400
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
Lines: 150
Message-ID: <>


Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release May 14, 1993


I hereby report to the Congress on developments since the
last Presidential report on November 10, 1992, concerning the
national emergency with respect to Iran that was declared in
Executive Order No. 12170 of November 14, 1979, and matters
relating to Executive Order No. 12613 of October 29, 1987.
This report is submitted pursuant to section 204(c) of the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. 1703(c),
and section 505(c) of the International Security and Development
Cooperation Act of 1985, 22 U.S.C. 2349aa-9(c). This report
covers events through March 31, 1993. The last report, dated
November 10, 1992, covered events through October 15, 1992.

1. There have been no amendments to the Iranian
Transactions Regulations ("ITRs"), 31 CFR Part 560, or to the
Iranian Assets Control Regulations ("IACRs"), 31 CFR Part 535,
since the last report.

2. The Office of Foreign Assets Control ("FAC") of the
Department of the Treasury continues to process applications
for import licenses under the ITRs. However, as previously
reported, recent amendments to the ITRs have resulted in a
substantial decrease in the number of applications received
relating to the importation of nonfungible Iranian-origin goods.

During the reporting period, the Customs Service has
continued to effect numerous seizures of Iranian-origin
merchandise, primarily carpets, for violation of the import
prohibitions of the ITRs. FAC and Customs Service investi-
gations of these violations have resulted in forfeiture actions
and the imposition of civil monetary penalties. Additional
forfeiture and civil penalty actions are under review.

3. The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (the
"Tribunal"), established at The Hague pursuant to the Algiers
Accords, continues to make progress in arbitrating the claims
before it. Since the last report, the Tribunal has rendered
12 awards, for a total of 545 awards. Of that total, 367 have
been awards in favor of American claimants: 222 of these were
awards on agreed terms, authorizing and approving payment of
settlements negotiated by the parties, and 145 were decisions
adjudicated on the merits. The Tribunal has issued 36 decisions
dismissing claims on the merits and 83 decisions dismissing
claims for jurisdictional reasons. Of the 59 remaining awards,
3 approved the withdrawal of cases, and 56 were in favor of
Iranian claimants. As of March 31, 1993, awards to successful
American claimants from the Security Account held by the
NV Settlement Bank stood at $2,340,072,357.77.

As of March 31, 1993, the Security Account has fallen
below the required balance of $500 million 36 times. Iran has
periodically replenished the account, as required by the Algiers
Accords, by transferring funds from the separate account held by
the NV Settlement Bank in which interest on the Security Account
is deposited. Iran has also replenished the account with the
proceeds from the sale of Iranian-origin oil imported into the
United States, pursuant to transactions licensed on a case-by-
case basis by FAC. Iran has not, however, replenished the
account since the last oil sale deposit on October 8, 1992.
The aggregate amount that has been transferred from the Interest
Account to the Security Account is $874,472,986.47. As of
March 31, 1993, the total amount in the Security Account was
$216,244,986.03, and the total amount in the Interest Account
was $8,638,133.15.

4. The Tribunal continues to make progress in the
arbitration of claims of U.S. nationals for $250,000.00 or more.
Since the last report, nine large claims have been decided.
More than 85 percent of the nonbank claims have now been
disposed of through adjudication, settlement, or voluntary
withdrawal, leaving 76 such claims on the docket. The larger
claims, the resolution of which has been slowed by their
complexity, are finally being resolved, sometimes with sizable
awards to the U.S. claimants. For example, two claimants were
awarded more than $130 million each by the Tribunal in October

5. As anticipated by the May 13, 1990, agreement settling
the claims of U.S. nationals for less than $250,000.00, the
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission ("FCSC") has continued its
review of 3,112 claims. The FCSC has issued decisions in
1,201 claims, for total awards of more than $22 million. The
FCSC expects to complete its adjudication of the remaining
claims in early 1994.

6. In coordination with concerned Government agencies,
the Department of State continues to present United States
Government claims against Iran, as well as responses by the
United States Government to claims brought against it by Iran.
In November 1992, the United States filed 25 volumes of
supporting information in case B/1 (Claims 2 & 3), Iran's claim
against the United States for damages relating to its Foreign
Military Sales Program. In February of this year, the United
States participated in a daylong prehearing conference in
several other cases involving military equipment. Iran also
filed a new interpretative dispute alleging that the failure
of U.S. courts to enforce an award against a U.S. corporation
violated the Algiers Accords.

7. As reported in November, Jose Maria Ruda, President of
the Tribunal, tendered his resignation on October 2, 1992. No
successor has yet been named. Judge Ruda's resignation will
take effect as soon as a successor becomes available to take up
his duties.

8. The situation reviewed above continues to involve
important diplomatic, financial, and legal interests of the
United States and its nationals. Iran's policy behavior
presents challenges to the national security and foreign
policy of the United States. The IACRs issued pursuant to
Executive Order No. 12170 continue to play an important role
in structuring our relationship with Iran and in enabling
the United States to implement properly the Algiers Accords.
Similarly, the ITRs issued pursuant to Executive Order No. 12613
continue to advance important objectives in combatting inter-
national terrorism. I shall exercise the powers at my disposal
to deal with these problems and will report periodically to the
Congress on significant developments.


May 14, 1993.

# # #
End: "Emergency Powers in the U.S."

cc: ALL
þ QMPro 1.52 þ "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." T. Jefferson


Your Name
City, State, Zip

The Honorable ________________________
United States Senate
703 Hart, Senate Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Sir (or Madam):
I am taking advantage of my American freedom, while I still have it,
to urge you to stand up for the American people, and make it your
position that the declared state of national emergency, which has
operated in this nation for over 60 years, be cancelled immediately.

I have been apprised of the amendment to Section 5 (b) of the Trading
with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, and understand the
extraordinary powers it has conferred upon the Executive branch. These
excessive powers have been used to sell our nation into slavery by
effective nationalizing our vital industries and separating the
American Citizen from their rights under common law.

I know that the Constitution of the United States has been set aside
under this "national emergency." I urge you now, as a servant of the
American people, to commit yourself to working for its immediate
return to its rightful owners - We, the People. If you are unwilling
or unable to take this stand in defense of your country, I request
that you tender your resignation so that another may take your place
who is willing and/or able to do that you are not.

The Supreme Court once said, "It is not the function of our
government to keep the citizens from falling into error; it is the
function of the citizens to keep the government from falling into
error." As such, I hereby charge you to repeal Proclamations 2039 and
2040, and 12 USC 95 (a) and (b), re-establish the Constitution of the
United States to its rightful position in our government, and Let Our
People Go.