"Those who say it cannot be done
should not interfere with those of us who are doing it"© - S.
Hickman

Home

Against the
Grain Press
Loss of Liberty Revealed

Working
Tommy
C.

Livid
Leigh

Boilin'
Ed

D. Tom

The
Informer

Knowledge is
Freedom

Privacy

Links

Court
Case

Contact Us

© 1994 - 2009
Against
the Grain

The Informer

WAR POWERS TODAY IN AMERICA
by the principles
applied in 1862
FALLACY & MYTH of PEOPLE BEING THE SOVEREIGN

and that the Constitution was created by the common man.
By
The Informer

In reading the Book WAR POWERS, by Whiting,
who was the Solicitor General of the War Department of The United
States, published in 1864, it does not come as a shock to me that we
are nothing but slaves of Congress, AKA United States. Whiting was
Lincoln point man and developed the basis for Lincolns justification
of the War Policies. Whiting teamed up with Francis Lieber who wrote
the "Lieber Code" that we are now under. James Montgomery, a present
day researcher, also has written extensively on the Reconstruction
Acts and the Lieber Code and how they apply to Americans to this
very day. After Whiting left office, his position that he held, was
never replaced.

A little prelude to the book by John Yoo,
War Powers Under the Constitution of the United
States, Author William Whiting.

An introduction by John Yoo, Professor of Law,
Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California at Berkley: JD.,
1992, Yale Law School; AB., 1989, Harvard University who teaches and
writes in the areas of constitutional law.

Upon opening this book, the tenth edition of
William Whiting's War Powers under the Constitution of The
United States the reader may be surprised . . .. If
anything, Whiting's work helps remove the blinders that a half
century of controversy over undeclared wars- from Korea to Vietnam
to Panama to the Persian Gulf- has placed over the eyes of the legal
profession. Born on March 3, 1813 in Concorde, Mass., he attended
Harvard and got his law degree in 1838. As a Boston attorney,
Whiting became known as so masterful a trial lawyer that, in his
day, the Common Pleas Court was sometimes called "Whitings
Court".  The Boston lawyer began writing in support of the
Lincoln administration’s arrests of suspected sympathizers of the
rebellion. As the war proceeded, Whiting joined the War Department
as Solicitor at the request of President Lincoln himself. No doubt
it had to do with Whitings publication, in 1862 in Boston. Whatever
the reason for his appointment, Whiting became the point man for the
Lincoln administration on the difficult and delicate constitutional
issues that arose from the war.

Whiting joined a truly exceptional group of
lawyers who would create many of the theories of the independent
presidency and the national security state that would reappear in
the middle of the twentieth century. In addition to patent officer
Peter Wilson, Whiting was joined by former cabinet member and first
judge advocate general Joseph Holt, international law scholar, and
Francis Leiber, and Eathan Allen Hitchcock and Henry W. Halleck,
both lawyers who became generals, the latter becoming General in
Chief in 1862.

In Whiting's documents he developed the legal
theories that would justify Lincolns measures to conduct the war
successfully on both the war front and home front; he also took a
prominent role in publicly disseminating and explaining these views.

One of the best students of Lincoln and of the
Civil War, Pulitzer Prize--winning historian- Mark E. Neely, even
suggests that it was Whiting's first pamphlet, War Powers
and the President, that convinced Lincoln that as commander in
chief he could abolish slavery in the rebellious states. Until
reading Whiting's works, Neely suggests, Lincoln had been reluctant
to issue the Emancipation Proclamation.

It is perhaps a tribute to Whiting's success
that no successor was ever appointed to his position upon his
resignation in 1865. His ardent support for the Republican Party
continued after leaving government service. In 1868 he served as
presidential elector for Ulysses S. Grant, and in 1872 he was
overwhelmingly elected to Congress by the third district of
Massachusetts. Death at age sixty, however, prevented Whiting from
joining the legislative body that he had once worked with as a
member of the executive branch.
End of prelude.

Contrary to what many people believe, the term
United States is NOT separate and distinct from the term United
States of America, because the two are synonymous. As I stated way
back in 1990 and continue to state, America is a country, and the
United States is NOT a country. The United States belongs to
America. Since the phrase United States OF America contains the word
"OF" between the two words United States and America, proper use of
the word OF means the United States belongs to America. Another rule
of grammar is that the phrase United States is a particular place
and not a group of states united. To become a group of states the
word United would have to appear as united States. The small "u"
would change the word United from a noun to an adjective. So one, to
be grammatically correct, would have to write united States of
America to correctly mean all 50 States. But even that is not a
country. Simply writing United States of America means only
Congress, AKA United States. A very simple proof is when the TV airs
the State of the Union message. The President is announced as
always, "I now present the President of the United States." It is
never announced,  I now present the President of the united
States of America. To be the President of the united States of
America would mean that the Governors of each of the states would
not have the final say on any laws passed in that state but would
have to depend on submitting anything the Governor had to sign to
the President for final approval.

Since I have shown previously in my other
books, through copious government documents, both of the United
States and England and History, that the common people never
ratified the constitutions of any of the states, much less the
United States; people still believe that they created the
constitutions and are, therefore, the so-called Sovereigns. This
sovereign status is claimed to be that the people can tell
government what and when to do anything through their perceived
notion that they have representatives and these so-called
representatives are their servants. This is a myth that has been
told people down through the centuries. This big lie is passed from
generation to generation so much so that people of all walks of life
now take it as gospel truth. This myth is what has caused much
dissention among the vast majority of people and even to cause
infighting amongst people called "patriots",  "militia" and
others of like mind.

This War Powers book is just another support
for my research and others such as Mr. Montgomery. I will lead into
this myth by quoting this great authority on War Powers and what he
had to say back in 1864. This will be very short and as I read
through the book I will add to his work to further show the Fallacy
and Myth. It will be unbelievable to many, who still believe the Big
Lie, that they are sovereign and somehow have control of this
supposed government they alleged they created and can dispense with
it when it becomes oppressive as it has today. I hope you are ready
because what follows are not my words but those of the author
Whiting and concurrence of all government branches. You also have to
remember that we have been in a state of war with these people
called Congress and the other two branches of so called government.

The United States is a belligerent government
under international law of nations and the people therein. Yes you,
dear reader, are the enemy subject and have never, ever, been a
sovereign, and neither have your relatives dating back to 1787,
UNLESS your relatives were one of the aristocracy having land and
money and possibly a grant from the Crown.

Before I get into the book, and to give you
what we call modern day research---Dr. Eugene Schroder did excellent
research on this at the time I was also researching this material. I
decided that since Mr. Schroder was doing this it would be redundant
to do the same research, so I proceeded back to Lincoln to research
the war powers back then. I had asked about 10 good researchers if
they knew of the War Powers Acts, specifically 12 Stat 319 and none
had researched it in order to give me any answers. But, I have to
start with 48 Stat 1 which Roosevelt shoved through in Executive
Order 2039, without Congress, on the 4th and 5th of March 1933. Then
on March 9, 1933, Roosevelt convened Congress and basically told
them what he did and that they had to sign off on it as he declared
a national emergency. This National Emergency made the United States
citizens enemies by adding them to the 1917 Trading with the Enemies
Act by changing 5(b) of that Act to include Americans, which it
never did before, which is you today.

The original draft was by the Federal Reserve
System, NOT Congress, and can be found in President Hoover's Papers
that can be obtained from any Federal Depository. On March 3, 1933,
President Hoover said it was unconstitutional and refused to
implement what the Federal Reserve Board drafted. Immediately after
taking office on March 4, 1933, the first thing Roosevelt did after
implementing what Hoover refused, was to close the banks so they
could be issued licenses by the President to deal with the enemy,
who was defined now to be all people in the country. Immediately
after that, each State set up its own Emergency War Powers regime to
coincide with the United States.

After thorough research in North Carolina by a
team of 5 people, we came up with documentation between the United
States, and not only North Carolina, but other States. It was to
slowly induce people into obtaining licenses as now the people,
being declared public enemies, had to have licenses. The
documentation showed how all people that were not required to have a
license to drive were now required to have a license merely to
travel as a right because they were the enemies. My mother and
father, both deceased, told me that they never had to get a license
until 1936. This documentation also showed how speed laws were set;
how federal labor laws and unemployment compensation was legislated
into the States; and the most important of all the social security;
touted as insurance, it was in actuality a means of licensing the
"enemy" to track their commerce under the Trading Acts with the
newly revised 1917 Trading with the enemy act.

This enemy surveillance is very evident today
by the use of what should be termed the Social Slave number but is
called Social Security. It was instituted by the President, NOT
Congress as most people believe. Oh sure, Congress passed
legislation so it appears they instituted it, but under the war
powers only the President institutes anything of importance and
Congress under the constitutional war powers takes a second seat.
They, in effect, become the puppets of the Executive branch. While
under the war powers, all branches that should come under the
Legislative branch and even the judiciary are controlled by the
executive department through the Commander-in-Chief.

Since 1933, and before then, we have always
been under Executive Emergency Orders despite in 1974 all was
repealed EXCEPT for section 5(b) of the Trading With the Enemy Act
of 1917. You can find it alive and well in Title 12 USC 95
(a)&(b). You can also find the other emergency war powers acts
still existing from 1862 which have NEVER been repealed. They have
their genesis from 12 Stat 319, and are 50 USC 212, 213, and 215 and
28 USC 2461 to 2465 as statutes passed as a direct and immediate
result of declared emergencies. You will see how this is done as you
read through this memorandum of mine.

This is totally under military powers of the
Commander in Chief, The President. This military Rule allows the
civil government to operate as it has, only it all comes under
administrative directives of the Commander In Chief. This explains
the reason all courts fly the Executives Commander In Chief gold
fringe flag and Federal courts have stationary using the United
States Executive Seal. Now that you know that, you have been under
executive Rule before and since 1933. I will now go back to the
first President to institute the Emergency War Powers Act to make
the people the enemy of the State. Roosevelt just made you the enemy
of the banking cartel to protect them. That is why the private
banking system Board can do what they want with impunity. They even
wrote in the law that the signature card you sign when opening a
bank account, unbeknownst to you, states in the 35 to 38 page
contract they are to give to you, but don't, that you assume the
debt of the United States. This is unconscionable under the
commercial law that you were never informed. This is your promise,
assumpsit in legal terms, which obligates and binds you to pay the
debt of the United States by becoming the surety. Remember all Banks
controlled by the Federal Reserve System are agents of the United
States Treasury.

How many people would enter a contract like
that, knowing they are responsible for the national debt? Since the
Federal Reserve is a private corporation and was made the fiscal
agent of the Treasury to collect and disburse money, or chose in
action called federal reserve notes, is the reason the 1040 IRS Form
is a return; a return of a use portion of the debt that is
circulated around by the enemy, AKA the people of America. This is a
very insidious scheme that people have no idea exists. In fact I
have found and written on the fact that in Title 31 it states that
banks can collect taxes on the 1040 form that is presented to them.
I have posted this research on www.atgpress.com/.

The first President to use the Emergency
powers was Washington. He used it to institute the first private
bank of the United States, which, was against all principles of the
constitution, EXCEPT, when instituted under constitutional war power
it became constitutional. Then in order to control the banks in each
of the separate states, which Congress could not do under the
Constitution in time of peace, he made districts out of each of the
states. So now you had states and district states and that is how
the district courts of each state were formed so the United States
could now have control where it dared not tread before. Once
emergency had been declared then all done under this act is
constitutional. Contrary to what people believe this act DID NOT set
the Constitution aside. It only operated in a different way under
emergency powers.

Now with all this in mind that the Commander
in Chief can operate within the Constitution when military rule
under the Emergency Powers Act is invoked; we move to Lincolns time
and his Solicitor General of the War Department who wrote the book
to show how common people have always been considered as nothing but
mere chattel property of a group of aristocracy that was called
Congress. From the beginning, this is the foundation that has caused
people to slowly lose what rights they THOUGHT they had, but the
plan was to get where we are today without a major rebellion by the
people.

This almost took place in 1861 with the
Southern States wanting to secede from the Union, and caused Lincoln
to invoke the Emergency Powers Act in Order that he could control
the Government without Congress. He did this under the guiding of
the works of Whiting. Once he invoked it Congress could do nothing
to stop it and the Courts, under this Act cannot stop it at all as
you will see why in End Note 17.

My comments, are placed in [brackets]
so you know they are not from the Book. All other comments and
information are end noted so as to keep the flow of the book
in order. Every jot and tittle is duplicated as in the Book. So with
that in mind let us move to the Book.

WAR POWERSChapter
I--THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF THE GOVERNMENT TO APPROPRIATE PRIVATE
PROPERTY TO PUBLIC USE, EITHER IN TIME OF PEACE OR IN TIME OF
WAR.

There is no restriction as to the kind or
character of private property which may be lawfully thus
appropriated, whether it be real estate, personal estate, right in
action or in possession, obligations for money, or for labor and
service. Thus the obligations of minor children to their
parents, of apprentices to their masters, and of persons owing labor
and service to their masters, may lawfully be appropriated to public
use, or discharged and destroyed for public benefit, by Congress,
with the proviso that just compensation shall be allowed to the
parent or master.
See END Note #1

The right to use the services of the minor, the apprentice, and the
slave, for public benefit, belongs to the United States. The claims
of all American citizens upon their services, whether by local law,
orby common law, or by indentures, can be annulled by the same
power, for the same reasons, and under the same restrictions that
govern the appropriations of any other private property to public
use.See END Note #2

THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE ALL SUBJECTS TO DO MILITARY
DUTY.Slaves, as well as apprentices and minors, are equally
subjects of the United States, whether they are or are not
citizens thereof. The government of the United States has the
right to call upon its subjects to do military duty.

See END Note #3
"The general
government of the United States has, in time of peace, a legal
right, under the Constitution, to appropriate to public use the
private property of any subject, or of any number of subjects, owing
it allegiance.
Each of the States claims and exercises a
similar right over the property of its citizens.
See END Note
#4
"The only question is, whether this
power is not exclusive, see Chirac v Chirac, 2 Wheat. 269; U.S. v
Villato, 2 Dall. 372; Thirlow v Mass., 5 How. 585; Smith v Turner, 7
ib, 556; Golden v Prince,3 W.C.C. Reports, 314

Congress may thus give the privileges of
citizenship to any persons whatsoever, black or white. Colored men,
having been citizens in some of the States ever since
they were founded, having acted as citizens prior to 1788 in various
civil and military capacities, are therefore citizens of the United
States, see case of Dred Scott; which no part denies that if colored
men were citizens of either of the states which adopted the
Constitution, they were citizens of the United States. ... If white
subjects or citizens, owe labor or service, even by formal
indentures, such obligations afford no valid excuse against the
requisition of government to have them drafted into the militia to
serve the country."
See END Note #5
INDEMNITY IS REQUIRED
"But, when individuals are called upon to give up
what is their own for the advantage of the community, justice
requires that they should be fairly compensated for it; . . .
(Amendments, Art. V, last clause,) "Nor shall private property be
taken for public use without just compensation."
The
language of this amendment admits the right of the United
States to take private property for public use. This amendment,
being now a part of the Constitution, leaves that right no longer
open to question, if it ever was in questioned.
"PUBLIC USE"    What is "public
use" for which private property may be taken?
Every
appropriation for the benefit of the United States, either
for a national public improvement, or to carry into effect and valid
law of Congress for the maintenance, protection, or security of
national interests, is "public use."
See END Note
#6
REFERENCES AS TO THE CONSTITUTION, SHOWING THE
WAR
POWERS OF CONGRESS    The powers of the
Legislative department in relation to war are contained
chiefly in the following sections in the constitution:--

Art. I., Sect.8,
Cl.11. Congress may institute war by declaring it
against an enemy. The President alone cannot do so. Also Congress
may make laws concerning captures on land, as well as on
water.
Art. I.,
Sect.8, Cl 12. Congress may raise and support armies: and
provide and maintain a navy.

Art. I., Sect.8,
Cl.14. Congress may make laws for the government of land and
naval forces.
Art.
I., Sect. 8. Cl. 15. Congress may provide for calling forth
the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection,
and repel invasion.

Art. I., Sect.8, Cl. 16. And may provide for organizing, arming, and
disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them
as may be employed in the service of the United States.
The
preamble to the Constitution declares the objects for which it was
formed to be these: "to form a more perfect Union; establish
justice; insure domestic tranquillity; provide for the
common defense; promote the general welfare, and to secure
the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
See
END Note #7
RULES OF INTERPRETATION
"Congress may pass such laws in peace or in war as
they are within the general powers conferred on it, unless they fall
within some express prohibition of the Constitution. If confiscation
or emancipation laws are enacted under the war powers of Congress,
we must determine, in order to test their validity, whether, in
suppressing a rebellion of colossal proportions, the United States
are, within the meaning of the Constitution, at war with its
own citizens? Whether confiscation and emancipation are sanctioned
as belligerent rights by law and usage of civilized nations? And
whether our government has full belligerent rights against its
rebellious subjects."
ARE THE UNITED STATES AT WAR?
"War may originate in either of several ways.
Civil war, within the meaning of the Constitution, exists whenever
any combination of citizens is formed to resist generally the
execution of any one or all the laws of the United States, if
accompanied with overt acts to give that resistance effect."

See END Note #8
"Hence it follows,
that government, while engaging in suppressing a rebellion, is not
deprived of the rights of a belligerent against rebels
by reason of the fact that no formal declaration of war has been
made against them, as though they were an alien enemy--. . .. The
right of a country to treat its rebellious citizens both as
belligerents and as subjects has long been recognized in Europe,
and by the Supreme Court of the United States*  See Geo.III.
Ch. 9 1777; Pickering Statutes, Vol. 31, page 312; President's
Proclamation, April 16, 1861 and U.S. Statute at Large , 1861,
App.P. 2. It has been decided, since this edition was in type, that
citizens of the States in rebellion are considered as public
enemies, and are not entitled to sue in courts of the United
States
See END Note #9
THE LAW OF NATIONS IS ABOVE THE CONSTITUTIONHaving
shown that the United States being actually engaged in civil war
---- in other words, having become a belligerent power, without
formal declaration of war,--- it is important to ascertain what some
of the rights of belligerents are, according to the law of
nations. It will be observed that the law of nations is above the
constitution of any government; and no people would be justified by
its peculiar constitution in violating rights of other nations. With
this caveat, it will be desirable to state some of the rights of
belligerents.
Either belligerent may seize and confiscate all
the property of the enemy, on land or on the sea, including
real as well as personal estate.
[This is exactly what they did to the woman as
expressed in end note #9 and hundreds ofthousands of
people in this country every year]
CAPTURE BY TITLE    Some persons
have questioned whether title passes in this country by capture or
confiscation, by reason of some of the limiting clauses of the
constitution; and others have gone so far as to assert that all the
proceedings under martial law, such as capturing the enemys
property, imprisonment of spies and traitors, and seizures of
articles contraband of war [all drug related or other avenues the
government of 1999 uses, whether guilty or not to seize such
property], and suspending the habeas corpus, are in
violation of the Constitution, which declares that no man shall be
deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,
Art. V; that private property shall not be taken for public use
without just compensation, Art. V; that unreasonable searches and
seizures shall not be made, Art IV; that freedom of speech and of
the press shall not be abridged, Art. I; and that the right of the
people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, Art. II.
THESE PROVISIONS NOT APPLICABLE TO A STATE OF
WAR    If these rules are applicable to a
state of war, then capture of property is illegal, and does not pass
a title; no defensive war can be carried on; . . .Not a gun can be
fired constitutionally, because it might deprive a rebel foe
of his life without due process of law ---firing a gun not
being deemed due process of law.
If these
rules above cited have any application in time of war, the United
States cannot protect each of the States from invasion by
citizens of other States, nor against domestic violence;.
TRUE APPLICATION OF THESE CONSTITUTIONAL
GUARANTEES    The clauses which have been
cited from the amendments to the Constitution were intended as
declarations of the rights of peaceful and loyal citizens, and
safeguards in the administration of justice by the civil tribunals;
but it was necessary, in order to give the government the means of
defending itself against domestic and foreign enemies, to maintain
its authority and dignity, and to enforce obedience to its laws,
that it should have unlimited war powers. The right of war and the
rights of peace cannot coexist. One must yield to the other. Martial
law and civil law cannot operate at the same time and place upon the
same subject matter. Hence the Constitution was framed with full
recognition of that fact; it protects the citizen in peace and war;
but his rights enjoyed under the Constitution are different from
those to which he is entitled in time of war.
See END Note
#10
WHETHER BELLIGERENTS SHOULD BE ALLOWED CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER

THE CONSTITUTION DEPENDS UPON THE POLICY OF THE
GOVERNMENT    None of these rights,
guaranteed to peaceful citizens, by the Constitution belong to them
after they have become belligerents against their own
government. They thereby forfeit all protection under that
sacred charter which they have thus sought to overthrow and
destroy. [People, this was the ploy that the Roosevelt and
Lincoln governments used to reign over the people of America. The
South wanted to leave, not overthrow the government. The United
States always talks with forked tongue and reversed the roles, as
they declared the people the enemy, not the other way around].
One party to a contract cannot break it and at the same time hold
the other to perform to it. It is true that if the government elects
to treat them as subjects and to hold them liable only to penalties
for violating statutes, it must concede to all of them all the legal
rights and privileges which other citizens would have when under
similar accusations;.
THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS
CONFISCATION    Nothing in the Constitution
interferes with the belligerent right of confiscation of enemy
property. [Always remember people, that you are the enemy
declared by your wonderful supposed government that you, claiming to
be Sovereigns, can abolish.] The right to confiscate is derived
from a state of war. It is one of the rights of war. The right of
confiscation belongs to the government as the necessary consequence
of the power and duty of making war--OFFENSIVE or defensive.
(EMPHASIS mine)
If authority were needed to
support the right of confiscation, it may be found in 3 Dallas, 227;
Vit.lib.iii., ch. 8, sect. 188; lib., ch. 9, sect. 161; Smith v
Mansfield, Cranch, 306-7; Cooper v Telfair, 4 Dallas;
Brown v. U.S., 8 Cranch 110, 228, 229. >From the foregoing
authorities, it is evident that the government has a right,
as a belligerent power, to capture or to confiscate any and all the
personal property of the enemy; that there is nothing in the
Constitution which limits or controls the exercise of that right;
and that capture in war, or confiscation by law, passes a complete
title to the property taken; and that, if judicial
condemnation of enemy property be sought, in order to pass title to
it by formal decree of courts, by mere seizure, and without capture,
the confiscation must have been declared by act of Congress, a mere
declaration of war not being ex vi termini sufficient for
that purpose.
See END Note #11
MILITARY GOVERNMENT UNDER MARTIAL
LAW    In addition to the right of
confiscating personal property of the enemy, a state of war
also confers upon the government other not less important
belligerent rights, and among them, the right to seize and hold
conquered territory by military force, and of instituting and
maintaining military government over it, thereby suspending in part,
or in whole, the ordinary civil administration. The exercise of this
right has been sanctioned by the decision of the Supreme Court of
the United States, in the case of California, Cross v Harrison, 16
How 164-190. And it is founded upon well-established doctrines of
the law of nations. No citizen, whether loyal or rebel, is deprived
of any right guaranteed to him in the Constitution by reason of his
subjection to martial law, because martial law, when in
force, is constitutional law.
A SEVERE RULE OF BELLIGERENT LAW
"Property of persons residing in the enemys
country is deemed, in law, hostile, and subject to condemnation
without any evidence as to the opinions or predilections of the
owner. If he is the subject of a neutral, or a citizen of one of the
belligerent States, and has expressed no disloyal sentiments towards
his country, still his residence in the enemy's country impresses
upon his property, engaged in commerce and found upon the ocean, a
hostile character, and subjects it to condemnation. This familiar
principle of law is sanctioned in the highest courts of England and
of the United States, and has been decided to apply to cases of
civil as well as of foreign war.
CIVIL RIGHT OF LOYAL CITIZENS IN LOYAL DISTRICTS ARE

MODIFIED BY THE EXISTENCE OF WAR
While war is raging, many of the rights held sacred by the
Constitution-- rights which cannot be violated by any acts of
Congress-- may and must be suspended and held in abeyance.

See END Note #12
BELLIGERENT RIGHT TO CONFISCATE THE ENEMY'S REAL
ESTATE    The belligerent right of
the government to confiscate enemys real estate, situated in this
country, can hardly admit of a question. The title to no
inconsiderable part of the real estate in each of the original
States of the Union, rests upon the validity of the confiscation
acts, passed by our ancestors against loyal adherents to the crown.
Probably none of these States failed to pass and apply these laws.
English and American acts of confiscation were recognized by the
laws of both countries, and their operation modified by treaties;
their validity was never denied. The only authority
which either of the States or colonies ever had for passing such
laws was derived from the fact that they were the
belligerents.
THE PRESIDENT IS THE SOLE JUDGE
"It belongs exclusively to the President to judge
when the exigency arises in which he has the authority, under the
constitution, to call forth the militia and his decision is
exclusive on all other person.
*Such is the language of Chief
Justice Taney, in delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court, in
Martin v Mott, 12 Wheaton, 19

[Jumping to Chapter five and reading what the true meaning of
the constitution is, will be shocking to those that think what they
read is what they read, and cannot infer any other meaning. No so
because the Constitution is couched in technical meaning, NOT common
sense meaning. This was shown when I quoted Article I Section 8
clauses.]

TECHNICAL LANGUAGE TO BE CONSTRUED
TECHNICALLY.    The language of the
Constitution is peculiar; it is technical; and it shows on the face
of it an intention to limit the technical operation of attainders,
not to limit the scope or extent of legislative penalties. If the
authors of the Constitution meant to say that Congress should pass
no law punishing treason by attainder, or by its consequences, viz.,
forfeiture of estate, or corruption of blood, they would, in plain
terms, have said so; and there would have been an end to the
penalties of attainder, as there was an end to bills of attainder.
Instead of saying, "Congress shall have the power to declare the
punishment of treason, but shall not impose the penalties of
attainder upon the offender,"  they said, "Congress shall have
the power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of
treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during
the life of the person attainted."
This
phraseology has reference only to technical effect of attainder. The
Aworking of forfeitures" is a phrase used by lawyers to show the
legal result or effect which arises from a certain state of facts.

Note. Since the publication of the seventh
edition, it has been decided by Underwood, J., in the Eastern
District Court of the U.S. for Virginia, in the case of U.S. v
Latham, first, that the Confiscation Act above cited is
authorized by the Constitution; second, that by the terms of
that Act (dated July 17th, 1862, ch. 195), as modified by the joint
resolution of July 27th, 1862 (No. 63), the punishment of treason is
not limited to forfeiture of the life estate of the offender, and is
not required to be so limited by the Constitution; but the
forfeiture extends to the entire estate in fee simple.
See
END Note #13
THE CONFISCATION ACTS OF 1862 IS NOT A BILL OF ATTAINDER,

NOR AN EX POST FACTO LAW    This act is
not a bill of attainder, because it does not punish the
offender in any instance with corruption of blood, and it does not
declare him, by act of the legislature, guilty of treason,
inasmuch as the offenders guilt must be duly proved and established
by judicial proceedings before he can be sentenced. It is not ex
post facto law, as it declares no act committed prior to the
time when the law goes into operation to be a crime, or to be
punishable as such. It provides for no attainder of treason,
and therefore none of the penal consequences which might have
otherwise have followed them from such attainder.
ACT OF 1862, SECTION VI, DOES NOT PURPORT TO PUNISH BY
TREASON    If the death penalty is not
inflicted on the guilty, and if he be not accused of treason, no
question as to the validity of the statute could arise under this
clause of the constitution limiting the effect of attainders for
treason. No objection could be urged against its validity on the
ground of its forfeiting of confiscating all the property of the
offender, or of its depriving him of liberty by imprisonment, or of
it exiling him from this country. . . .But the crime punished by
section 6 is not the crime of treason; and whether there be
or be not a limitation to the power of the legislature to punish
that crime, there is no limit to its power to punish the crime
described in this section,*. See Note, page 111 United States v
Latham.
Though treason is the highest
political crime known to the codes of law, yet wide spread
and savage rebellion is still a higher crime against society; . ..

See END Note #14
STATE RIGHTS AND SECESSION DOCTRINES IN THE JURY
ROOM    The jury are by law judges of the
law and the fact, according to the opinion of many eminent lawyers
and judges. Whether this be so or not, their verdict, being upon the
law and the fact, in a criminal case, they become in effect judges
of law and fact. Suppose that a judge presiding at the trial is
honest and loyal, and that the jury is composed of men who believe
that loyalty to the State is paramount to loyalty to the United
States; or that the States had, and have, a lawful right to secede
from the Union. [Did not the Declaration of Independence give
that lawful right? Think again.] Whatever of the opinions of the
judge presiding in the United States courts might be on these
questions, he would have no power to root out from the jury their
honest belief, that obedience to their own laws of their own
seceding State is not, and cannot be, treason. [Now you are going
to see how they have destroyed the jury to gain a conviction in 99
percent of the cases, say IRS cases, so that the courts control the
outcome under the doctrine of the Military Rules of War,
and the jury be damned.] The first step towards
securing a verdict would be to destroy the belief of the jury in
these doctrines [sounds like jury tampering] of State rights,
paramount State sovereignty, and the right of secession. To decide
the issue, according to the conscientious judgement of the jurymen
upon the facts and the law, would require them to find a verdict
against the United States
SYMPATHY    But this is not the only
difficulty in the operation of this statute. The grand jury and the
petit jury are to be drawn from those who are neighbors and possibly
friends of the traitor. [remember, a traitor is a "political"
enemy as defined by the Solicitor himself and you are a "political
enemy" today] The accused has the further advantage of knowing,
before the time of trial, the names of all the jurors, and of all
the witnesses to be produced against him; he has the benefit of
counsel, and the process of the United States to compel the
attendance of witnesses in his behalf.* Statute of April 30, 1790,
Sec.29. How improbable is it that any jury of twelve men will be
found to take away the lives or estates of their associates, when
some of the jurymen themselves, or their friends and relatives or
debtors, are involved in the same offense!

[This is why the government stacks the jury. Now we are going
to get to the meat of jurisdiction in IRS cases. I have stated all
along and written about it extensively that all revenue is
under admiralty, but very few will listen. Well read the next
statement of the Solicitor.]

LAWS ARE MOST EFFECTIVE WHICH REQUIRE NO REBEL
TO
ADMINISTER THEM    Those sections of the act
of 1862, empowering government to seize rebel property, real,
personal, and mixed, and apply it to the use of the army, [today
it is the local police using seized property] to secure the
condemnation and sale of seized property, so as to make it
available, and to authorize proceedings in rem, conformably
to proceedings in admiralty or revenue cases, are of a different and
far more effective character.
See END Note #15

Some persons have turned their attention to
certain passages in the amendments relating, as was supposed, to
this subject. Let us examine them:

Article IV.  "The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures shall not be violated".

This amendment merely declares that the right
of being secure against UNREASONABLE seizures or arrests shall not
be violated. It does not declare that NO ARRESTS shall be made. Will
any one deny that it is reasonable to arrest or capture the
person of the public enemy?
If all arrests,
reasonable or unreasonable, were prohibited, public safety would be
disregarded in favor of the rights of individuals. [So much for
people who believe the rights of the individual supersede the public
AKA Government rights. Now I ask you, Are you Sovereign?]

Not only may military, but even civil,
arrests be made when reasonable. Emphasis the Solicitors.

[48 Statutes at Large 1, very specifically
declared the people of America public enemies, whether of the
banking cartel or otherwise, it was already done by Lincoln. Now to
prove public enemies have no rights that are protected by the
infamous Bill of Rights is this passage in the Book.]

OBJECTION THAT ARRESTS ARE MADE WITHOUT
INDICTMENT    The Fifth article of the
amendments to the Constitution provides that-- [I let the reader
obtain a copy as it is quoted here in the Book]

This article has no reference to the rights
of citizens under the exigencies of war, but relates only to their
rights in time of peace.
OFFICERS MAKING ARRESTS NOT LIABLE
TO CIVIL SUIT OR CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION    That military arrests
are deemed necessary for public [definition for "public" means
government only] safety by Congress is shown by the act of March
3, 1863, ch.81, wherein it is provided that no person arrested by
authority of the President of the United States shall be discharged
from imprisonment so long as the war lasts, and the President shall
see fit to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus.
MILITARY ARRESTS LAWFUL    The laws
of war, military and martial, written and unwritten, founded on the
necessities of government, are sanctioned by the Constitution and
laws, and recognized as valid by the Supreme Court of the United
States.
Arrests made under the laws of war
are neither arbitrary nor without legal justification.
In
Cross v Harrison, Judge Wayne, delivering the opinion, (16
Howard, 189, 190,) says:
Early in 1847 the President, as
constitutional commander -in-chief of the army and navy, authorized
the military and navel commanders of our forces in California to
exercise the belligerent rights of a conqueror, and to form a civil
government for the conquered country, and to impose duties on
imports and tonnage as military contributions for the support of
government and of the army which had the conquest in possession. No
one can doubt that these orders of the President and the action of
our army and navy commanders in California, in conformity with them,
were according to the law of arms &c.

So in Fleming v Page, (9 Howard, 615,)
Chief Justice Taney says:
"The person who acted in the character
of collector in this instance, acted as such under the authority of
the military commander and in obedience to his orders; and the
regulations he adopted were not those prescribed by law, but by the
President in his character as commander-in-chief."

It is established by these opinions that
military orders, in accordance with martial law or the laws of war,
though they may be contrary to municipal laws; and the use of the
usual means of enforcing such orders by military power, including
capture, arrest, imprisonment, or the destruction of life and
property, [such as those in the Waco incident and others
throughout the country] are authorized and sustained upon the
firm basis of martial law, which is, in time of war, [and
national emergency that we have been living under all our lives]
constitutional law.

END OF PART ONE OF WHITINGS WAR POWERSEnd Note
#1
Now people, are you still sovereign?
Did common people write such a Constitution that would destroy the
children so they could be taken by Congress without your consent? I
think not.
End Note #2
And you
think that the people who fought for freedom would have written and
ratified such a power to a group of mere men, Congress, by way of
this Constitution that you so dearly love? Are you stating to
realize something is amiss?
End Note #3

Now if you are Sovereign why do they call all
subjects?
They italicized the words, not I.
Without a shadow of a doubt you are slaves to Congress. Do you have
to wonder anymore why the state can take your children and you are
powerless to do anything about it? And the common people wrote and
believe in a Constitution that would allow a group of men called
Congress to have so much power when they just fought for freedom? I
dont think so, and in fact it has been proven in every original
constitution that no common man had a say in drafting any
Constitution. The proof can be found in every State archive Building
by obtaining the original writings.
Was not
Patrick Henry correct when he stated in the June 7th 1788 Convention
that the Constitution, "Among other deformities, it has an awful
squinting: it squints toward monarchy. And does not raise
indignation in the breast of every American? Your President may
easily become King. . . The army will salute him Monarch: your
militia will leave you and assist in making him King and fight
against you. And what have you to oppose this force? What will then
become of you and your rights? Will not absolute despotism ensue?"

And what of James Wilson when he voiced,
"Henry looked upon "that paper" as the most fatal plan that could
possible be conceived to enslave a free people." Ok, so what does
commit you to the wrath of Congress?  It is stated in the Book
in big italic letters, which you all should look in a grammar
dictionary to see what italics mean.
End Note #4

As stated, the people are "SUBJECTS" of the
Government just like the "subjects" of English Rule and the words in
italics that control you as subjects are allegiance. Allegiance
can be found in many ways. People are pledging the Pledge of
Allegiance; claiming to be a citizen of either a State or of the
United States; registering to vote; claiming to be a "resident" in
the state of the forum; signing a signature card at the bank that
obligates you to accept the debt of Congress so you are bound by
contract to pay, thereby becoming a "subject".; claiming that the
Constitution is yours; claiming the Constitution was designed by
people like you and that is the law that you must abide by. All are
presumed to be allegiance. Now did this apply to all, even colored
people? Why yes, and this Book proves that the Constitution CREATED
slavery, and that it took away the rights of citizenship of the
colored people. Now, those people that argue that the 14th Amendment
made the colored people free might be correct, but it also made the
white people slaves when relying on the 14th Amendment, even though
they became slaves to the establishment when declared enemys of the
"State". Therefore, the blacks just traded masters as the
belligerent power, the Congress, controlled them as enemy property
as no money was paid to the original slave holders (just
compensation) according to the constitution in time of peace. After
all it was Congress that took the blacks in 1787 and by recognizing
them as property of the slave holder actually instituted slavery of
all blacks that once were "citizens" having all the rights and
privileges they had before the Constitution was enacted by those in
power.
The Book shows the misinformation used
by people claiming that only white people were citizens. It also
shows that the word citizen was used well before the 14th Amendment,
as seen in the quotes below.
End Note #5

Hence the President and Congress via the
Constitution took away the rights of the colored people by declaring
them property. The Constitution, that you people reading this;
believe that you are sovereign; believe that common people drafted
and ratified the Constitution; believe that you own your property;
believe that you are not subjects of a group of men called Congress,
or that of legislators of the states; believe the Bill of Rights
protects you; believe the Constitution is the supreme law of the
land. Well let me tell you that your beliefs are 100 percent wrong.
What if I told you that this Book states that treaties and
International law of Nations are supreme over even the Constitution
drafted by the aristocracy of this country and that even the states
succumb to these treaties and International Law?

This Book proves it. This Book had an
advisory board of eight professors and eminent lawyers carrying
L.L.D.; J.S.D.; S.J.D.; J.D., M.A.L.S.; F.R.B and Ph.D. to
authenticate its contents that was written by the Solicitor General
of the War Department of the United States. The Constitution that
you claim you love so much, took away natural rights of man via the
war power and congressional right in time of peace.
End Note
#6
I end Chapter one of the Book on this
note. The above are only parts gleaned from Chapter one of this 342
page book. Chapter one is only 31 pages. The word "Public" means
government only and not the mass of people. It is limited to
Congress or State Legislators. You common people have no
representation whatsoever. All Congress people do is represent the
United States corporation claiming they represent you in the
district state that Washington created under the War Powers clause
in 1791. In this chapter it explains the specific parts that are war
powers clauses and they are; Article I, Section 8, Clauses 11, 12,
14, 15, and 16. The Book also states that, "The preamble to the
Constitution declares the objects for which it was framed to be
these"-- then it is quoted. I now quote from another authority.
Third edition of Cases in Constitutional Law, by Cushman &
Cushman. In here they quote the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Curtiss
Wright Export Corporation, 299 US 304, 1936. "As a result of the
separation from Great Britain by the colonies, acting as a unit, the
powers of EXTERNAL sovereignty passed from the Crown not to the
colonies severally, but to the colonies in their collective
CORPORATE capacity as the United States of America."  I
purposely emphasized the words because the Crown was still the
sovereign INTERNALLY because of his corporate colonies mineral
rights that he still controlled. This is found in Mr. Montgomerys
works on www.atgpress.com. The fact that the United States is a
corporation, see 28 USC 3002 (15), is why the United States can
seize property of anyone whenever the need arises. The evidence for
this is found in:
16 USC Sec. 831x
TITLE 16
CHAPTER 12A
Sec. 831x. Condemnation proceedings; institution by
Corporation; venue
-STATUTE-    "The
Corporation may cause proceedings to be instituted for the
acquisition by condemnation of any lands, easements, or
rights-of-way which, in the opinion of the Corporation, are
necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter. The
proceedings shall be instituted in the United States district court
for the district in which the land, easement, right-of-way, or other
interest, or any part thereof, is located, and such court shall have
full jurisdiction to divest the complete title to the property
sought to be acquired out of all persons or claimants and vest the
same in the United States in fee simple, and to enter a decree
quieting the title thereto in the United States of America."

The corporation spoken of is the United States
or any of its created corporations that take land under eminent
domain, such as the States or any corporation they form in which
they own 51 percent or more of that corporation.
End Note
#7
So in time of war, which a national
emergency falls under, even though no shooting or invasion has
occurred, then all the Constitution that you so dearly love and
would die for, is the very same document that allows all the
presidents since Washington to; declare the first emergency powers
act to institute the first Bank of the United States in direct
contradiction to the Constitution in time of peace; Lincoln who made
the people the enemy of the United States and its Union Members, the
States; Roosevelt declaring the national emergency in 1933 under the
war powers act and the trading with the enemy act; to the present
President Clinton to control you as citizen/subjects/ slaves with
the system designed and drafted by the landed aristocracy in treaty
with the Crown. That is why the Solicitor, Whiting, stated that
International Law of Nations and Treaty rein supreme and not the
Constitution when emergency powers are invoked. This I exposed by
court cases in my book The New History of America. The
Big Lie is now even more evident and I have just scratched the
surface of the first chapter of eight, in this book of War
Powers, by Whiting.

In the second chapter we find the Congress has
the power under the war power clauses to write statutes in aid of
the President "in the final and permanent conquest of a public
enemy."  I cannot impress upon the reader the words conquest
and public enemy and I implore you to study these words on your own
in any library and to save you time, Mr. Montgomery has posted much
of this documentation on the web site previously mentioned. This
Book pertains to the time of the civil war but has far reaching
consequences in the principals it spells out.
End Note #8

Right here is proof that if Congress pass
laws that are repugnant to human rights, and there has been a total
erosion of many, many freedoms of Americans, as you well know, then
Whiting is stating that the people, who are perceived by people
themselves to be Sovereigns, are without any such power to correct
the law or laws repugnant to their rights. If the people were truly
Sovereigns as they claim, no such section in the constitution
created by the common man would exist. For if in doing so, the
people would have declared that they elected another King or
dictator, and to thwart these rights the people claim as sovereigns,
all the President or Congress has to do is invoke the emergency
powers Act. Such was done in 1933 when people demanded their money
from the banks that stole all their money. You know, the ones that
you have signed the signature card agreeing to accept the National
debt? This right to seek a return of money deposited in the banks
for safe keeping was thwarted by Roosevelt to protect all the banks,
which, included his friend Rockefeller who owned the Chicago bank
and would lose all his holdings if forced to return the people’s
money that was rightfully theirs. This was called suppression by
government because they were suppressing a rebellion of the people
to claim what was rightfully theirs from a private banking system
that was now under the supposed control of the United States as it
acted as the agent for the United States when the United States did
away with a truly Independent Treasury by the Act of 1920 in the
year 1921, making the PRIVATE federal reserve system the fiscal
agent of the United States.
End Note #9

Although this Book deals with the Civil War,
the principles laid out are for any emergency declared under the War
Power clauses, not just the Civil war of 1860's, but Roosevelts
invoking of that Act, which to this day still exists. So the
following must be read with this in mind when considering that a
majority of people say there is no more constitution. There is a
Constitution, as it is constitutional for what the government does
to you today under war powers---like take your land as most people
in confrontation with farm land or wet lands would agree; confiscate
car, home and whatever under the war on Drugs with out due process
of any law that would exist in time of peace; license and number all
people to track the public enemies, that being you. It would behoove
the reader to seek the definitions of belligerent in both legal and
standard dictionaries. The United States, as belligerent, IS the de
facto government although constitutional, when people read the
definitions closely.
I am at this point,
inserting what came off the Internet of the hearings before
Congress, of just one evidence of the confiscation of hundreds of
thousands every year, that, in time of peace and not under war
powers, would have never taken place. When reading this keep in mind
what you have already read and are about to read after this actual
happening.

Introductory statement at the Judiciary Hearing, July 22,
1996. Rayburn Building.

To: House of Representatives / Committee on the Judiciary /
Civil Forfeiture Reform
I sincerely
appreciate this opportunity to speak to you in person about my
mother's experience with the abuse of our national civil forfeiture
law, a law which ignores due process, encourages abuse by police and
prosecutors, confiscates property from innocent law abiding citizens
and threatens our sacred honor with the tyranny of a police state.
My mother is an 85 pound, 75 year old hardworking frugal lady, who
chose to squirrel away any extra money she had rather than buy
herself any of the things most people consider necessities. Although
she has bought a few residential rental properties, she still tears
Kleenex in half to stretch her money, and settles for eating half
sandwiches rather than run up her grocery bill. She has never taken
a vacation or missed a day's work in the business, but neither has
she ever been to a shopping mall. She's always lived as though the
next Great Depression would happen any day. By 70, she managed to
save around $70,000 which she kept in her house because her
Depression experience taught her not to always trust banks.

In December of 1989, the U.S. Government
came to my mother's home and took her savings from a floor safe in
her basement. Three months later, they seized her home and two
rental properties she owned (20 men). You need to know my mother was
never charged with a crime, and the police acknowledged she was
never part of my brother's marijuana ring conspiracy. Mom's biggest
sin was allowing the adult son she loved to live next door to her.
After my brother was indicted, he fled town. The government
suspected she PROBABLY had allowed him to use her property
illegally, and PROBABLY been given cash earned by him illegally. As
you know, asset forfeiture laws only require probable cause to seize
property. Once property has been seized it is the owner's burden to
prove innocence to the government. When this happened to Mom, I
thought "innocent until proven guilty" would apply in her case and
she would immediately get her cash back. Trusting the government, I
didn't even hire an attorney then for that matter. I soon learned
later that under the Constitution a citizen isn't afforded innocent
until proven guilty in civil forfeiture cases. She wasn't considered
innocent and the government didn't have to prove anything. The
$70,000 they took from mom was mostly old bills dated from the 60's
and 70's and was covered with mold and mildew. The safe was rusted
shut and had to be drilled open. Tragically, the FBI did not keep
her cash in an evidence locker, but deposited her money into a bank,
co-mingling it with other people's money and thus destroying her
evidence and proof of innocence.
The
morning government agents banged on Mom's door telling her they were
there to seize her home, it included the local police, County
Sheriff's Dept., U.S. Marshall's Service, several FBI agents, and
IRS agents (about 20 in all). All this force to take some property
from one, innocent, unarmed, law abiding 70 year old, 85 pound
woman. I immediately called our family attorney and he met me at
Mom's house. It had previously been said to me by an agent, "They
want to take everything your mother has a make her tell what she
knows about your brother, and maybe it will make him come back, too
!"
When I arrived at Mom's home she was in a daze. One
agent had a camcorder going on her as she sat there in her old
negligee at 8:00 AM. She said she asked the agents where she was
suppose to live and was told, "I don't care where you go, but you
have a half-hour to pack up and get out !" Thankfully, our attorney
was able to reach an agreement that allowed Mom to "rent" her own
house from the government until the case went to trial. The horror
of the forfeiture squad invading her home still brings regular
nightmares to mom 6 years later. I did everything in my power to
convince the government agents that they were making a huge mistake
and that mom was not a criminal. To them that didn't matter. Since
they COULD seize her property, they did. An agent said to me, "When
I first took this case to my boss, he said not even to mess around
with it, that it was just another stupid marijuana case, until I
showed him how many assets we could get!" I spent many, many
cooperative and truthful hours trying to convince them that this was
insane, and finally realized it would cost me more going to trial
than her properties were worth. I eventually made a settlement with
them and Mom got to keep a little of what she worked her whole life
for. They took most of it, including her dignity and love for our
government.
I am here for my mother
and our Country. It is too late to help her case, and besides, I had
the government sign a paper that they could never bother her again.
I want to make sure they can never do this to another mother with a
bad kid. I have been on this crusade since I saw a Readers Digest
article in 1992, titled, Is It Police Work or Plunder, about
nationwide forfeiture abuse and Congressman Hyde's effort to reform
this law. I bought a computer, joined an Online Internet Service and
have been e mailing thousands of unaware citizens to educate them
about this barbaric civil forfeiture law.

Nobody thinks it is right when they learn
how it is used, except prosecutors who do not want a proof provision
in the law. One prosecutor told me, "Citizens don't need a proof
provision, those in charge of a case are perfectly capable of
determining who is guilty!" That statement, I was told by a
Constitutional law professor, is the definition of tyranny. I love
the America I knew growing up in the 40's and 50's, but am scared to
death of the police state this Country could become with more and
more laws allowing forfeiture. IT HAS TO STOP. Our Founding Fathers
put their lives on the line against tyranny and cavalier attitudes.
In my opinion, no real or personal property should be forfeited
except in criminal cases. Eliminate this ridiculous, insane,
corrupting law, or re-write it to include meaningful proof, fairness
and compassion. It is ruining people's lives and is just another
national disgrace. Thank you.
Note: Mom eventually took
her own life over this matter.

End of testimony    Now
please read the rest of this Book more closely or go back and
refresh your memory before reading further. This could very well
happen to you. This man, speaking for his mother, has no idea he is
talking to the proverbial foxes guarding the status quo to see that
it is kept in tact and paying lip service to correct what they know
cannot be corrected unless the President declares, #1 a repeal of 12
Stat 319. #2 a repeal of 12 USC 95 (a) & (b). #3 A repeal of
section 5 (b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act as written in 48
Stat 1, AND, abolishing the District States the Washington created
to gain control over the people of the States in 1791.
End
Note #10
Now one must remember, that
present day law is in reality military law that allows the civilian
authorities to apply the rules of war upon belligerents, the
domestic enemy, YOU. One must also remember that the United States
has declared war upon its citizens by the act of 12 Stat 319 and 48
Stat 1, which, to this day, has never been repealed by Congress. The
fact that Title 12 USC 95 (a) & (b) has declared the people of
America "public enemies" still exists, proves it is a "domestic war"
upon which President Roosevelt acted at the behest of the Federal
Reserve. We have become the belligerent enemy to the belligerent
United States. Now mind you that we did not declare war against the
United States but rather the United States declared an imperfect war
upon the people of America. There is no public declaration as if we
were a foreign power as Japan was in 1942. No, there is a subtle
declaration in 48 Stat 1 and 12 Stat 319. People find this hard to
believe until they read for themselves all these statutes and United
States Codes and regulations I have quoted herein. The law speaks
for itself quite clearly and after reading them it would be
impossible for anyone to deny this fact. Belligerents we are, and
with that in mind I return to the Book.
End Note #11

This is exactly how and why the IRS operates,
the BATF operates, the DEA operates and all those other alphabet
agencies of government, even down to child services. And, remember
the IRS is nothing but hired private collectors by the IRS District
Director to collect for the private federal reserve system, the debt
owed to the International Monetary Fund by the United States, that
caused you to become the "enemies" in 1933 by 48 Stat 1, which was
written by the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve. You also
must remember at the beginning of this quoted Book, it is said by
Whiting, that minors can be taken in time of war from their
belligerent parent, or have you forgotten so soon?]

End Note #12
The following proves
that you never owned your property and if you did, it can still be
taken, evidence the woman's plight in end note #9. So much for the
argument that even the King may not enter your house although the
cold, wind, rain , etc. etc. may. And so much for the argument that
you are sovereign and the government takes a back seat to your
wishes. Remember, reader that you have been declared the "enemy" by
those officials of government, namely, Congress and the presidents,
who you claim to be your servants. The confiscation acts have not
been repealed and have been in force since 1787. Is it not now
evident that the common man, wishing to be free, would have set up
such a government if he were Sovereign?
End Note #13

How does the U.S. government or the States
seemingly get around this attainder or ex post facto law when;
seizing property of the farmer; people that they want the land for
national parks; wet land violations that they dream up; seizures of
all kinds of property under "drug war laws" whether innocent or not
without due process? The reasons are found in War powers, which are
constitutional. If you are not found guilty of treason the validity
of any statute passed by Congress, or for that matter the State
legislatures cannot be questioned, only if you are so charged with
treason, and, therefore, what you thought was a protection does not
become a protection under the constitutional operation of military
rule by civil authorities under war powers acts. You will understand
by what is stated by Whiting in returning to the body of the Book

End Note #14
So now you know that
treason is ONLY a POLITICAL crime, how is it that we, the people of
America, have become the enemies of the POLITICAL establishment? The
answer is very simple after reading my book The New History of
America. The political aristocracy who wrote the Constitution
did not intend for the masses to take part and become sovereigns as
you so think that you are. No, neither you nor your ancestors ever
were a party to the contract called the Constitution of any of the
colonies nor of the United States. I have quoted the case in my
New History of America from which I quote only a small part
here,
" to this: that the States, in making the Constitution,
intended to give up the power of self preservation."

Lastly, the Court at page 491, said this of
the People who made the constitutions,

"The people of the
States who made the Constitution, considered themselves as the
sovereign, and the Government as the subject. They were the
principal- it the agent. That this is also true none will dispute."

We all know it is not us
people who made the Constitutions but the select few as stated by
the Court at page 520, to wit;

"But, indeed, no
private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the
ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is
true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The
States are the parties to it. And they may complain. If they do they
are entitled to redress. Or they may waive the right to complain."
END OF QUOTE.

The only way to control the masses is to
institute constitutional war powers to institute a different, but
constitutional, set of parameters upon the people. Once the war
powers are adopted they can change the statutes to fit the ends they
want to achieve. They do it slowly so as to not give a clue to the
masses. The war powers act of 1862 now allowed the President and
Congress to constitutionally change the statutes that guaranteed the
people, in juries, to rule on both the law and the facts. Not only
were the statutes changed that took away to power to judge the law
but it also took away the right to be judged by your peers. The
meaning of peers will be very evident when reading the next part of
Whiting's Book and shows why today you have no such protections
because the enemy can have no such protections. Even to the point
that the jury is not aware of the slow indoctrination over the years
that they really do have the right to judge the law, but not under
the Rule of Necessity in the Rules of military Rule.
End Note
#15
Since I have been talking about these
acts of seizure and so has the Solicitor, I think it only fair to
produce those codified statutes that were born by 12 Stat 319 and
never repealed, showing that the war powers and military rule still
exists. If the war against the people, by the government were over,
these laws would have been repealed.
Notes on Title 50, Section
212
SOURCE
(R.S. Sec. 5308.)

CODIFICATIONR.S. Sec. 5308 derived from act Aug. 6,
1861, ch. 60, Sec. 1, 12 Stat. 319.

Title 50 Sec. 212. Confiscation of property employed to aid
insurrection

Whenever during any insurrection against the
Government of the United States, after the President shall have
declared by proclamation that the laws of the United States are
opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, by combinations too
powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial
proceedings, or by the power vested in the marshals by law, any
person, or his agent, attorney, or employee, purchases or acquires,
sells or gives, any property of whatsoever kind or description, with
intent to use or employ the same, or suffers the same to be used or
employed in aiding, abetting, or promoting such insurrection or
resistance to the laws, or any person engaged therein; or being the
owner of any such property, knowingly uses or employs, or consents
to such use or employment of the same, all such property shall be
lawful subject of prize and capture wherever found; and it shall be
the duty of the President to cause the same to be seized,
confiscated, and condemned.
Notes on Title 50, Section 213

SOURCE
(R.S. Sec. 5309; Feb. 27, 1877, ch. 69, Sec. 1, 19
Stat. 253; Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, Sec. 291, 36 Stat. 1167.) -COD-

CODIFICATIONR.S. Sec. 5309 derived from act
Aug. 6, 1861, ch. 60, Sec. 2,12 Stat. 319. Act Mar. 3, 1911,
conferred the powers and duties of the former circuit courts upon
the district courts.
AMENDMENTS1877 - Act Feb. 27, 1877, inserted
''may'' after ''any district in which the same''.
Sec. 213.
Jurisdiction of confiscation proceedings
Such prizes and capture
shall be condemned in the district court of the United States having
jurisdiction of the amount, or in admiralty in any district in which
the same may be seized, or into which they may be taken and
proceedings first instituted.

Notes on Title 50, Section 215
SOURCE
(R.S. Sec. 5311;
June 25, 1948, ch. 646, Sec. 1, 62 Stat. 909.)
CODIFICATIONR.S. Sec. 5311 derived from act
Aug. 6, 1861, ch. 60, Sec. 3, 12 Stat. 319. -CHANGE-
CHANGE OF NAMEAct June 25, 1948, eff. Sept. 1,
1948, substituted ''United States attorney'' for ''attorney of the
United States''. See section 541 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial
Procedure, and Historical and Revision Notes thereunder.
Sec.
215. Institution of confiscation proceedings
The Attorney
General, or the United States attorney for any judicial district in
which such property may at the time be, may institute the
proceedings of condemnation, and in such case they shall be wholly
for the benefit of the United States; or any person may file an
information with such attorney, in which case the proceedings shall
be for the use of such informer and the United States in equal
parts.
Now this is not the only place that seizure is found. I
now move to 28 USC.
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDUREAdmiralty and
maritime rules of practice (which included libel
procedures)
were superseded, and civil and admiralty procedures in United
States district courts were unified, effective July 1, 1966,
see rule 1 and Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime
Claims, Appendix to this title.

Sec. 2461. Mode of recovery

(a) Whenever a civil
fine, penalty or pecuniary forfeiture is prescribed for the
violation of an Act of Congress without specifying the mode of
recovery or enforcement thereof, it may be recovered in a civil
action.
(b) Unless
otherwise provided by Act of Congress, whenever a forfeiture of
property is prescribed as a penalty for violation of an Act of
Congress and the seizure takes place on the high seas or on
navigable waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of
the United States, such forfeiture may be enforced by libel in
admiralty but in cases of seizures on land the
forfeiture may be enforced by a proceeding by libel which
shall conform as near as may be to proceedings in
admiralty.

Sec. 2462. Time for commencing proceedings
Except as
otherwise provided by Act of Congress, an action, suit or proceeding
for the enforcement of any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture,
pecuniary or otherwise, shall not be entertained unless commenced
within five years from the date when the claim first accrued if,
within the same period, the offender or the property is found within
the United States in order that proper service may be made thereon.

Sec. 2463. Property taken under revenue law not
repleviable
All property taken or detained under any revenue law
of the United States shall not be repleviable, but shall be deemed
to be in the custody of the law and subject only to the orders and
decrees of the courts of the United States having jurisdiction
thereof.

SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONSThis section
is referred to in title 26 section 7434.

Sec. 2464. Security; special bond

(a) Except in cases
of seizures for forfeiture under any law of the United States,
whenever a warrant of arrest or other process in rem is issued in
any admiralty case, the United States marshal shall stay the
execution of such process, or discharge the property arrested if the
process has been levied, on receiving from the respondent or
claimant of the property a bond or stipulation in double the amount
claimed by the libelant, with sufficient surety, to be approved by
the judge of the district court where the case is pending, or, in
his absence, by the collector of the port, conditioned to answer the
decree of the court in such case. Such bond or stipulation shall be
returned to the court, and judgment or decree thereon, against both
the principal and sureties, may be secured at the time of rendering
the decree in the original case. The owner of any vessel may deliver
to the marshal a bond or stipulation, with sufficient surety, to be
approved by the judge of the district court, conditioned to answer
the decree of such court in all or any cases that are brought
thereafter in such court against the vessel. Thereupon the execution
of all such process against such vessel shall be stayed so long as
the amount secured by such bond or stipulation is at least double
the aggregate amount claimed by libelants in such suits which are
begun and pending against such vessel. Similar judgments or decrees
and remedies may be had on such bond or stipulation as if a special
bond or stipulation had been filed in each of such suits.

(b) The court may
make necessary orders to carry this section into effect,
particularly in giving proper notice of any such suit. Such bond or
stipulation shall be indorsed by the clerk with a minute of the
suits wherein process is so stayed. Further security may be required
by the court at any time.

(c) If a special bond
or stipulation in the particular case is given under this section,
the liability as to said case on the general bond or stipulation
shall cease. The parties may stipulate the amount of the bond or
stipulation for the release of a vessel or other property to be not
more than the amount claimed in the libel, with interest, plus an
allowance for libelant's costs. In the event of the inability or
refusal of the parties to so stipulate, the court shall fix the
amount, but if not so fixed then a bond shall be required in the
amount prescribed in this section.
Security; special bond

Sec. 2465. Return of property to claimant; certificate of
reasonable cause; liability for wrongful seizure

Upon the entry of judgment for the claimant in
any proceeding to condemn or forfeit property seized under any Act
of Congress, such property shall be returned forthwith to the
claimant or his agent; but if it appears that there was reasonable
cause for the seizure, the court shall cause a proper certificate
thereof to be entered and the claimant shall not, in such case, be
entitled to costs, nor shall the person who made the seizure, nor
the prosecutor, be liable to suit or judgment on account of such
suit or prosecution.

SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONSThis section
is referred to in title 26 section 7328.
I
now proceed to IRS cases to prove the above and what Whiting stated
about revenue and admiralty being the same jurisdiction for
collection and seizure. He did say that under the war powers "in
rem" proceedings are used. His reasoning was adopted by the Supreme
Court in 1863.

United States v. One 1966 Chevrolet Pickup Truck, 56
F.R.D. 450 (1972);
"A
proceeding in rem is governed by the Supplemental Rules for
Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims, a supplement to the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. (hereinafter
Supplemental Rules), See Rule A, Supplemental Rules;"

And this next case,
United States of America, Libelant v $3976.62 In Currency, One
1960 Ford Station Wagon, 37 F.R.D. 564; Key 31. "Although
presumably for purpose of obtaining jurisdiction, action for
forfeiture under Internal Revenue Laws is commenced as proceeding
in admiralty, after jurisdiction is obtained proceeding takes on
the character of civil action at law, and at least at such stage of
proceedings, Rules of Civil Procedure control."

"On August 14, 1964 a `libel' of information'
(see Supreme Court Admiralty Rule 21; 28 U.S.C.  Sec. 1355;
26 U.S.C. 7323) was filed by the United States Attorney."Ibid
565.

Further proof is gleaned from Benedict on Admiralty 7th Edition.

Quoting from Benedict on Admiralty, 1850;

"Its necessary effect [the Act] was, however, to start the
courts on that system of practice, and really to impose upon them,
in admiralty and maritime cases, the civil law practice, as that
under which they must continue to administer justice,
even after the expiration of that act, until further provision could
be made."

Section 105 states;

"The Purpose
of the Constitutional Grant--The Essential Harmony of the Maritime
Law. The grand purpose of the Constitution was to unify the several
States [several meaning separate], the whole people, in their
national, international, and interstate relations and
all other purposes were subordinate and ancillary to
this."

Section 123 states;

"The
commission to the Governor as Vice-Admiral was very full, granting,
in language so clear that it cannot be misunderstood, an admiralty
jurisdiction as wide and beneficial as the most zealous supporters
of the English Admiralty ever claimed for it."

This is the type of court that exists today
and why we cannot bring a pure Article of the Bill of Rights
argument in a contract court of the law-merchant in their civil law
under war powers act of 1862. Benedict states at Section 5 that,

" "* * *the civil law was held to be the law of
admiralty, and the course of proceedings in admiralty, closely
resembled the civil law practice."

Remember, in 28 USC 2461, it states as near as may be to
admiralty?

Revenue comes under commerce and is basic to
the jurisdiction of the admiralty/maritime court. Evidence the fact
every judge states you can't bring the Constitution in his court.
You can't bring in the Seventh Article of the Bill of Rights. Why?
Because it is evident after reading Benedict on The American
Admiralty, Its Jurisdiction and Practice, 1850, Chapter XIII
section 195, to wit: "So the seventh amendment is limited to
suits at common law, which does not include either suits of equity,
or of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction".

The American people are not under common law
or any other law but Emergency War Powers.

American Ins. Co. v Canter, 1 Pet. 511, 545 (1828). "A
case in admiralty does not, in fact, arise under the Constitution or
Laws of the United States."
Most people would
not understand why such a case would not come under the
Constitution. The reason being when in war, and proceeding in
admiralty, International law and treaty law takes over. It is stated
in Chapter two of Whiting's Book that the Law of Nations, which is
International law, rules over the Constitutions. One of the
International laws is that of Treaty with the United Nations. So try
as you might to oust the United States from the UN treaty, as long
as we are the enemy and the United States the belligerent power
running the show you will never, under international law that we
live under, obtain your goals.

Benedict states at section 204;

"In such cases, the
question before the court, is not whether the court has
jurisdiction, but whether the party have right; it is not a question
in abatement, but a question of the merits of the action. `If the
cause is a maritime cause, subject to admiralty cognizance,
jurisdiction is complete over the person as well as over the ship.
It must in its nature be complete, for it cannot be confined to one
of the remedies on the contract, when the contract itself is within
its cognizance'." The quote he used is from 12 Wheat 460; 7 Howard
729 Boyd's proceedings.

Whether the party have the right? Yes. As
enemies of the State, you have no rights that you call unalienable.
And the case for that is called, The Sally, 8 Cranch 382, 384,
wherein the court stated; "By the general law of prize, property
engaged in the illegal intercourse with the enemy is deemed enemy
property. It is of no consequence whether it belong to an ally or a
citizen; the traffic stamps it with a hostile character, and
attaches to it all the penal consequences of enemy ownership".

In The Shark,
(1862)page 218 the court states,

"All persons doing
business with the enemy, whether citizens of the United States or
citizens of the other belligerent nation or neutrals, are as to
their property to be deemed enemies."

Therefore, with all this knowledge as to why
you are deemed the enemy, this case called The Julia, (1813) falls
right into what Whiting stated in 1864 about the enemy having no
rights.
"No contract is considered valid as
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."

Now you know why people charged under the
revenue laws that are in court have a 99 percent chance of losing;
have no right to present the law or regulations to the jury, as that
has been eliminated slowly since 1867; to claim and show a defense;
are 99 percent of the time denied all motions that would have to be
ruled in their favor. AND, when having a claim against the United
States they always institute a Rule 12(b)(6), that claims YOU have
not stated a cause in which relief can be granted. This is so
because the enemy in rebellion, the cash cow of the United States,
the so called "tax protestor", can never overcome. The IRS can seize
property of all types without any due process in the courts before
they take the property as explained in Whitings Book continued after
you read this endnote. Also, for those people who believe that if
you revoke all signatures and get out of banking and social
security, get rid of all contracts with the government that you are
free. Not so, because you are still the neutral under the emergency
(war) powers act. You could claim to be the highest exhalted ruler
from another country, but as long as you stay in this country under
the belligerent power, you are the subject of this government. This
is a fact that no one can deny. The "neutral" speaks to the fact
that your presence in the state or country makes you an enemy, so to
argue you are not subject, because you have removed yourself from
banking or social security, holds no water to the conqueror holding
the guns, or I might add to international law.]

End Note #16
Yes, the habeas corpus
is a PRIVILEGE and NOT a right, and it is granted by government in
time of peace. It can and has, for all intents and purposes, been
suspended. This is evident by the fact that between 1957 and about
1990 only 3 percent of all habeas corpus have been granted. Now, all
this material so far has proven one thing. That is, the people of
America who thought they were sovereign; who thought government was
their servant; who thought the Constitution was their doing; who
thought the Bill of Rights were written for them; who thought the
constitution was there to protect them; who thought that white
citizens were always above the blacks; who thought the term
"citizen" did not show up until after the Fourteenth Amendment; who
never realized that blacks voted, held office, held military
commissions before the 1787 Constitution; who did not realize that
the 1787 Constitution enslaved the black people by considering them
property by the institution of Article I, Section 2, Clause 3; who
thought the constitution was over all treaty law or International
law of nations; who thought we were living in times of peace; who do
not believe they are considered "public" enemies; who believe that
they are free, are sorely mistaken. So let us move along in the Book
and destroy some more myths. One has to remember that this Book was
written during Civil war and talks about military law, the
principles apply to this very day, even though you do not see
uniformed officers behind the desks of the alphabet agencies of
government, although you do see quasi military presence in the form
of a police officer that is termed "law enforcement." They are no
longer peace officers.]

End Note #17
Turning to Whiting's separate section
Titled, The Return of the Rebellious States to the Union, we
see the mindset of government, our enemy, as so aptly stated by
Albert J. Nock in his book, Our Enemy, The State. It shows that the
people of the South and the North became enemies of the United
States, AKA Congress, because the southern states could not be
admitted back into the Union and have disabilities different than
the north. So Congress over rode President Johnsons veto of the war
powers after Johnson decreed the war powers over, and then Congress
declared that in order to have all states on equal footing they
would continue the emergency war powers to include all the people in
the States of the Union to be enemies, subject to the confiscation
acts of 12 Stat 319. The section on Reconstruction of the Union
shows that the southern States were forced into submitting to the
United States, thereby showing, for all to see, that the
Constitution is of "No Authority" as stated by eminent Jurist
Lysander Spooner.
The South had sought to be
free from the Union as expressed in the Declaration of Independence
and the Constitution, that whenever government ceased to be what it
was supposed to be, they had the right to secede. Such was not the
case and shows the fraud of the Constitution for what it is. For if
the abuses could not be remedied the South sought to only do what
the Constitution stated, and that was to form a new government, but
not touch the present government of the North. They did not want to
overthrow the old government. This also proves that the Treaty of
1783 still is supreme over the Constitution which the treaty
created. This I brought forth in my book The New History
of America by quoting from the First Circuit Court of the
United States operating in North Carolina in 1796. Before closing
Part one I might add that the emergency power can continue absent
any war that started it. The case for one to read on this is Woods v
Miller, 333 U.S. 138; 68 S. Ct. 421; 92 Led 596 (1948). This dealt
with the rent control act that was declared unconstitutional by the
District court. It was appealed directly to the Supreme court and it
reversed the District courts judgement, declaring that because
although the war was over the rent act was a direct and immediate
cause when invoking the war powers/Emergency powers of Congress and
therefore was constitutional and could continue as it likened it to
"police power". Justice Jackson concurring stated, "I think we can
hardly deny that the war power is a valid ground for federal rent
control now as it has been at anytime. We still are technically in a
state of war."
Therefore, the emergency
powers invoked by the Congress in the Reconstruction Acts and
Roosevelts Emergency Powers Acts are still "technically" alive and
well and have never been repealed by Congress. One more nail in the
coffin of the MYTH that the common man is Sovereign is the fact that
when the case of Ex parte Milligan was heard it was a conclusion
that the Court would find the Reconstruction Acts unconstitutional
because of the establishment of the military government throughout
the South. The court did not. Then two years later the case of Ex
Parte McCardle came before the Supreme Court. McCardle was a
southern editor of a Newspaper. He used the statute designed,
ironically, to protect the rights of Negroes and federal officers in
the South. The Court unanimously agreed that the statute gave it
jurisdiction in McCardles case. Then with McCardle's case already
concluded, Congress undertook to block a decision of the Court by
repealing the law by which jurisdiction to hear McCardles appeal had
been conferred. The repeal occurred and McCardle lost. What happened
is that Over 100 years since Ex parte McCardle, the action of the
Congress in lopping off of the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court in order to forestall an unwanted decision has been generally
regarded as a regrettable legislative assault upon the independence
of the Court-- a precedent which it was hoped would not be followed.

This shows the power that Congress and the
President has under the war powers. This is why there is no
separation of the departments of government under emergency rule.
This is why the Supreme Court of today, cannot rule against the
emergency war powers in effect. The Court is controlled by Congress,
CONSTITUTIONALLY, under the War Powers Clause of the Constitution. I
would say, in conclusion, of Part one, that the Congress has
continued its Sovereignty by invoking the War Powers and
Reconstruction Acts starting March 2, 1867, so that they may invade
and strip the rights of the people so as to gain more control than
they had in time of peace under the Constitution. The Congress are
the ultimate administrators of not only the District Courts in time
of peace, but has the control of the allegedly separate branch
called the Supreme Court under War Powers. This only further proves
that the common man was never a Sovereign to begin with, despite all
the hoopla and conjecture that he is. By the term "common man" it is
meant the man on the street, the laborer. Washington, Jefferson,
Hamilton, John Jay, etc., etc, were not the "common man". They were
aristocracy, had money, had land, all had holding in the mother
country, England, and were what was called the landed people. They
were the People spoken of in "We the People" in the preamble, not
the Acommon man". The fact that grammatically the third word in a
sentence, being capitalized, denote a specific class when it is
capitalized, therefore, People did not include the "common
man".
If indeed it meant all the people it
would have read "We the people". Pull any English Grammar book and
you will see for yourselves what I say is correct. The lip service
and spin doctors have done a wonderful job of hiding the true
character of the common man for all these years, that being, he is a
subject here in America, the same as he was a subject under the
Crown, only here he is called a "citizen". There is no difference.
This was proven in my book The New History of America,
which, was written with documented facts that were worded as if I
wrote it all without documentation, except for the direct quotes.

END of PART ONE

\