Outpost of Freedom blog

 The
Outpost of Freedom
presents

MARTIAL LAW?

By
Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom

For years we have heard that the United States

was in bankruptcy,

that we are under Martial Law.

For years we could only suppose this to be true.

Dr. Gene Schroder,

American Agricultural Movement,

has done extensive research into the matter.

The results of his research prove that

these claims are, absolutely, true.

Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been

operating under a declared

National Emergency

as a result of that bankruptcy.

The effect is an erosion of our Constitutional protections.

All information contained herein
is Copyright by Common Law.

Reproduction rights are granted,
so long as proper credit is given.

MARTIAL LAW

by
Gary Hunt
May 24, 1994

It seems that we have all heard that “martial law” had been declared and that we have been living under it for most, if not all, of our lives. I, like many others, looked at the circumstances and assumed that this could be true. I have not, however, been able to find the documentation of this matter and, therefore, have been reluctant to claim such.

Thanks to a very close fiend from Dallas, Texas, that I have never met (he was my “alarm clock” during the siege in Waco — by virtue of calling me every morning, to wake me up), I now have most of the paperwork that supports this contention. This paperwork comes from a Citizens for Legal Reform meeting, January 18, 1994, “Abolition of the United States Constitution Under the War Powers Act”, by Dr. Gene Schroder.

It is important, since we now know this to be true, to understand exactly how it was that we came under “Martial Law.” It is one thing to assume that it is true, another to know that is true and quite another to KNOW why it is true. I will give quotes and refer to the documents from which they are taken.

WORLD WAR I

World War I, the War to end all wars, allowed the Congress to pass the “Trading with the enemy Act”. [SIXTY-FIFTH CONGRESS, Session I, Chapter 106, “An Act To define, regulate, and punish trading with the enemy, and for other purposes”.] The Act was passed on October 6, 1917. Portions of said Act are presented below:

Section 2(c) contains the definition of “enemy”, to include, ‘”Such other individuals or body or class of individuals as may be natives, citizens, or subjects of any nation with which the United States is at war, other than citizens of the United States, . . . may, by Proclamation, include within the tern “enemy” (emphasis mine)

Section 5(a) gives the President the authority to suspend the Act with regard to any ally of the enemy, as he shall determine to be appropriate. An interesting assumption that the President may allow continuation of trade with an enemy, indirectly, based upon his determination!

Section 5(b), however, allows the President to “. . . regulate, or prohibit . . . any transactions in foreign exchange, export or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency . . . by any person within the United States; and he may require any such person engaged in any s such transaction to furnish, under oath, complete information relative thereto, including the production of any books of account, contracts, letters or other papers, in connection therewith in the custody or control of such person, . . .”

 Interesting that he has also made testimony compulsory. This appears to be a direct violation of that portion of Article V, Bill of Rights, which states, “nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”, and is the beginning of the decimation of our Rights protected thereunder.

Section 6 provides for “officials to he known as ‘alien pi property custodians”, who will be empowered to receive all money or property owned by, or owed to, any enemy or ally of enemy.” Has this become the IRS?

Interesting that the authority granted the President allowed such a broad degree of discretion, and that the “gold and silver” mandated by the Constitution would be an object of this Act. My recollection was that Habeas Corpus may be suspended only, “when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the Public Safety, may require it.”

The Writ of Habeas Corpus provision provides that no one may be arrested by the government, unless the arrest is made pursuant to the Constitution. Article 5 of the Bill of Rights, says, “No person .shall he held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces; or in the Militia when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person he subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall he compelled in any criminal erase to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Perhaps the intended meaning of this provision has been lost. Does it mean, among other things, that the government may not arrest anyone unless the determination that an arrest is to be made is made by a group of peers? That government, of and by itself, has not the authority to arrest anyone? Except, of course, in those times where a national emergency is declared.

So, perhaps the meanings given to the words by the Founding Fathers has been lost. Law enforcement officers make arrests, without indictments by the Grand Jury, and property is “seized”, under property forfeiture laws, daily. Perhaps we have found why these sacred protections have slowly eroded into what we have been led to believe is good “crime control.” Perhaps we have been LIED to by the very people chosen to represent us.

So much for this, however, because the War ended and all returned to normal — except the fact that Congress had allowed this Act, which was a step in denial of Constitutional protection, to continue to exist.

Did these Acts of Congress continue to affect our daily lives? Or, were they discontinued at the end of hostilities? Go to your local law library and read 12 USC §95(b).

DEPRESSION

History makes quite clear the existence of the Great Depression. Exactly when it began is subject to debate. However, the fact that Franklin D. Roosevelt became President in March 4, 1933 is not.

On Sunday, March 5, 1933, Franklin Roosevelt called for Congress to “convene in extra session” on March 9, 1933 [Proclamation 2038]. On the very next day, he declared, by proclamation, a “bank holiday” which ran from Monday, March 6 through Thursday, March 9, inclusive. In the proclamation, he makes some rather interesting claims. He states that “there have been heavy and unwarranted withdrawals of gold and currency . . . for the purpose of hoarding.” and this “has resulted in severe a drains on the Nation’s stocks of gold : and” 

“WHEREAS these conditions have created a national emergency; and”

He then goes on to refer to “Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, (40 Stat. L, 411) as amended ‘That the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of license or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange and the export, hoarding, melting, or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency * * *’”

Further, “NOW, THEREFORE, I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America in view (f the national emergency and by virtue of the authority vested in me by said Act . . . “ (emphasis mine), and declares the “holiday”.

The “national emergency” that he spoke of was the extension of lending authority granted to the Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) just twenty years before. The FRB was unable to provide, in gold, the deposits on hand. The system of fractional banking had allowed them to extend credit well beyond the available “value” held in trust by the banks. This is the definition of bankrupt, “The state or condition of one who is unable to pay his debts as they are, or become, due.” (Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition)

Then curiously, on March 9, Roosevelt saw fit to continue the “bank holiday” [Proclamation No. 2040] until further “proclamation” by the President. Perhaps never to be rescinded by said proclamation.

Then, on March 9, 1933, Congress passed “AN ACT To provide relief in the existing national emergency in banking, and for other purposes”. [73^rd Congress, Public Law No. 1, March 9, 1933. (Title I, § 1, 48 Stat. I] (emphasis mine) “That the Congress declares that a serious emergency exists and that it is imperatively necessary speedily to put into effect remedies of uniform national application”. Congress, not to be outdone by the President, passed a joint resolutions which confirmed the existence of the emergency (March 9 Proclamation) and argued that the resolution was necessary; otherwise the payment in gold, of real debts, would “obstruct the power of Congress to regulate the value of the money of the United States.” That “every provision contained or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold [the Constitution] or a particular kind of coin or currency [gold certificates], or an amount in money of the United States measured thereby; is declared to be against public policy; . . . Every obligation, heretofore or hereafter incurred, whether any such provision is contained therein  or made with respect thereto, shall be discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar: in any coin or currency [Federal Reserve Notes] which at the time of payment is legal tender. . .” (emphasis mine)

Within the Act they rewrote Section 5(b) of the “Trading with the enemy Act” of 1917. The first sentence is provided, in it’s entirety, to give you an idea of the change of mood of the government:

1933, Section 5(b)

During time of war or any other period of national emergency declared by the President, That the President may , through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, export or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President, and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, in any form (other than credits relating solely to transactions to be executed wholly within the United States); and transfers of evidence of indebtedness or of ownership of property between the United States and any foreign country, whether enemy, ally of enemy or otherwise, or between residents of one or more foreign countries, by any person within the United States or any place  subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and he the President may require any such person engaged in any such transaction referred to in this subdivision to furnish, under oath, complete information relative thereto, including the production of any books of account, contracts, letters or other papers, in connection therewith in the custody or control of .such person, either before or after such transaction is completed…”

Let me repeat this as, it has read since 1933:

“During time of war or any other period of national emergency declared by the President, the President may, through  any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President, and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency by any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and the President may require  any person engaged in any transaction referred to in this subdivision to furnish under oath, complete information relative thereto, including the production of any books of account, contracts, letters or other papers in connection therewith in the custody or control of .such person, either before or after such transaction is completed “

Interestingly, it appears that all reference to “enemy” is deleted, and the law now acts on “any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof” Have WE become the ENEMY?

Note, also, that if the President were to issue a “license”, the trading would be condoned. Have we been given a “license” to conduct our everyday activities of commerce? Many businesses, along with driving, hunting, fishing, etc., have become “licensed” activities. I leave to you to find the correlation.

The question might arise as to whether Roosevelt thought this out by himself The answer is a resounding NO! In a letter and recommended Resolution that Herbert Hoover received from Eugene Meyers, Governor of the Federal Reserve Board, dated March 3, 1933, we find the exact wording incorporated in the Act.’ This “advice” was finally followed by Roosevelt just a few days later, just after he was sworn in to office.

It is even more interesting to understand just what happened to all of the gold, at this point. Remember, this was predicated on the fact that the Federal Reserve Banks were unable to pay out the gold for which “certificates” had been issued. But, what happened to the gold? In “The Hoover Policies”,’ in discussing the affects of the New Deal, “This first  contact of the ‘money changers’ with the few Deal twined those who removed then money from the country a profit of up to 60 per cent when the dollar was debased [gold was $20 per ounce before, and $32 per ounce after the banking act].” It appears, then, that those “in the know” were able to “remit” their “gold certificates” for gold prior to these Acts. The result was the reduction of assets in the banks to repair those with money on account and the transfer of the real “money”, gold, to those who fled the country to profit from the misfortune of most of working America, throwing these working people into a dependency on government that resulted, in 1934, in the establishment of the Social Security Act, the beginning of “The New Deal” and the beginning of the demise of the “Great Experiment.”

Let’s check the validity of what we have just said. From the Congressional Record [March 9, 1933, page 79, by Steagall], “Section 2 confers upon the President the powers bestowed under the act of October 6, 1917, regardless of whether or not the county is involved in war.” Later, in that same document [page 82] Mr. McGugin says, “Anyone knows that this Government cannot now collect enough taxes to meet their expenses . . . there is only one thing left for them, and that is to print money. “

In a report “Contracts payable in Gold” [Senate Report, Document No. 43, April 17, 1933, Page 9], we read the following statement, “The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so‑called ‘ownership’ is only by virtue of Government, i. e., law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.”

 Well, this appears to be consistent with much that we have learned lately, we own NOTHING, not even our children. To bad they didn’t teach this lesson in “government school” history class, after all, this is an official government document, and is obviously what government believes to be true ‑ do you wonder whatever happened to what used to be called a “freeman”?

Let’s go a bit further on this thread — the United States Supreme Court said, in United States v. Russell [13 Wall, 623, 627] “Private property, the Constitution provides, shall trot be taken for public use without just compensation. . . . Extraordinary and unforeseen occasions arise, however; beyond all doubt, in cases of extreme necessity in time of war or immediate and impending public danger, in which private property may be impressed into public  service, or may be seized or appropriated to the public use, or may even be destroyed without the consent of the owner. . . .”

It appears that it had taken the Money Merchants just twenty short years to evolve from their first introduction, along with the 16th and 17th amendments, of the Federal Reserve Bank, into the history of the United States, to a position whereby their “currency” (fiat money) was made the “coin of the realm.”

OTHER ACTS OF 1933

On May 17, 1933, Congress enacted additional legislation [Public Law No. 10, 1933 (HR 3835)] entitled, in part, “An Act To relieve the existing national economic emergency by increasing agricultural purchasing powers, to raise revenue for extraordinary expenses incurred by reason of .such emergency, . . . ” This Act allowed Government to purchase cotton to prop up prices; store the cotton and borrow against it. They would then sell it back to the producers, so long as the producer did not buy more than that which, when added to his production for a given year, did not exceed the production for the previous year, and allowed government to prohibit the producer from growing any other crop on the land previously used for cotton production. The “licensing” of the “right” to sell cotton to foreign powers was also “given” to Government.

Part 2 of this Act extended the above to any agricultural product the Government wanted to get involved in, thereby becoming “partners” with the farmers of America. Of course, a “Processing tax” was also included to cover the cost of the Government’s participation. The Act, however, was a very significant and substantial beginning to partnerships between Government and private sector ‑ that which has culminated in the controls now imposed upon nearly every aspect of business today.

Section 13 of this Act declares that, “This title shall cease to be in effect whenever the President finds and proclaims that the national economic emergency, in relation to agriculture has been ended . . .”

Then we come to Section 43, “Whenever the President finds, upon investigation, that (I) the foreign commerce of the United States is adversely affected by reason of the depreciation in the value of the currency of any other government or governments in relation to the present standard value of gold, or (2) action under this section is necessary in older to regulate and maintain the parity of currency issues of the United States, or (3) an economic emergency requires expansion of credit, or (4) an expansion of credit is necessary to secure by international agreement a stabilization at proper levels of the currency of various governments, the President is authorized, in his discretion‑‑” then continues, under these criterion, to authorize the “creation” of money, out of virtually nowhere. This, in and of itself seems to defy logic and place an inordinate degree of authority within the office of President — and remove it from the legislative body of our representatives.

The conclusion of this Act, however, is the epitome of the desecration of the concept handed down by the Founding Fathers. Section 46 amends the existing Section 19 of the Federal Reserve Act by adding, “Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this  section [Section 19], the Federal Reserve Board, upon the affirmative vote of not less than five of its members and with the approval of the President, may declare a that an emergency exists by reason of credit expansion, and may by regulation during such emergency increase ease or decrease from time to time, in its discretion, the reserve balances required to be maintained against either demand or time deposits.” So, what has been accomplished is an “emergency” that is self sustaining and has a life of it’s own. The Act has created a means by which it can be extinguished., yet provides further provisions, and the creation of permanent agencies, which preclude that from ever occurring.

IS IT REAL?

The question will surely arise as to whether this “state of emergency” still exists. Well, we can go to 1973 and review the report of the Senate “Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency.[93^rd Congress, Senate Report No. 93-549, November 19, 1973]” From the Forward of that report:

“Since March 9, 1933, the United Starters has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now four presidentially proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Truman on December 6, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971.”

“These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. . . . . delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress . . . confer enough authority [to the President] to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional processes.”

REALITY

There you have it! The Senate of the United States, in committee, determined that, in fact, a national emergency exists today. As a result of the committee recommendations there: was a suspension of some of the executive orders relevant to national emergencies. However the significant ones still stand, in particular, those of 1933. Perhaps there is a reason that the Senate saw fit NOT to discontinue the national emergencies back in 1973. The perpetuation of this act is absolutely necessary to sustain the fraud that we have been under, for most of us, our entire lives. Anyone born before 1933 probably doesn’t even realize what has happened to our country, our government, our laws and our Constitution There is no doubt, however, that at this time we are under a national emergency, and that we now understand why the system of laws and protections that we read about cannot be practiced. A foreign (Federal Reserve Board and Bank) enemy has descended upon us, and has acquired control of our government. That control would not be released until we demand, by whatever means necessary, Congress to return of our Constitution and the Great Experiment that the Founding Fathers granted us.

“THE WAR IS ACTUALLY BEGUN”

After debate of solutions to the impending extension of control by the British, the Virginia Assembly was addressed by Patrick Henry on March 23, 1775 (nearly a month before Lexington-Concord). Solutions had been presented that might be consistent with Common Law Courts, Redress through legislative action, petition, boycott, demonstration, etc. The British had already imposed military control over certain areas, including Boston where “Indians” had dumped 342 chests of tea into the harbor.

As you read the following, think of the efforts being exerted by “patriots” all over the country today. Think, also, of incidents in California (Scott), Idaho (Weaver and Harris), Arkansas (Kahl) and Waco, Texas (Branch Davidians). Think of the legislation that has been passed, or pending, in Congress.  Compare the circumstances of our past and determine whether we have learned from them, or not.

“No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if entertaining, as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the house is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery. And in proportion to the magnitude of the subject, ought to be the freedom of debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time through fear of giving offense I should consider myself guilty of treason toward my country and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of Heaven which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President it is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth – and listen to the song of the siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the house? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those war like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation – the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy in this quarter of the world to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British Ministry have been long forging. And what have we to oppose them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which now coming on. We have petitioned – we have remonstrated – we have supplicated – we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free – if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending – if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained – we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight!! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak – unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the illlusive phantom of Hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we posses are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat, but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged, their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable – and let it come!! I repeat it, sir, let it come!!!

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, peace, peace – but there is no peace. The war is actually begun. The next gale that sweeps from the North will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!“

Who makes the laws?

(“He has erected a multitude of new offices”)

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
December 22, 2009

“It poisons the blessing of liberty itself.  It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow.  Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?”

James Madison
Federalist Papers #62

We have been taught that the Congress of the United States makes the laws.  After all, we elected them to legislate, to make those laws that are necessary for the government to exist and to do its job.  But the question arises — does Congress make those laws that we are bound to?

Well, for over 150 years, the Congress did make the laws.  But, then, they got too busy with other things and found that they didn’t have time to do what they were elected to do, rather, they opted to delegate the authority to make the laws to others, giving them more time to socialize with their friends and local lobbyists.  Of course, they rationalize their actions as the way that they have found to work the best to conduct their duties for us.  They have put the specific authority for making most laws into the hands of those who are, well, more experienced and more qualified to make those laws than the Congressmen, themselves, the they, for the most part, are completely unknown to us.

I realize that this is a hard nut to swallow, so we must begin looking at a law that was enacted in 1946.  This law was passed by the Congress, but, it was also the beginning of the end of Congress ‘wasting their time’ doing what they were being paid to do.

We will begin with a brief legislative timeline of the Administrative Procedure Act.  In 1937, a Presidential committee recommended “separation of investigating/prosecuting functions from decision making functions”.  So, the first recommendation to deal with Administrative agencies was to separate their functions.  The Act, which claimed to address these concerns, was first submitted in 1939, under the title, Walter- Lagan administrative procedure bill.  It passed Congress, but was vetoed by then President Franklin Roosevelt.  It was again submitted to Committee in 1941, went through numerous hearings, and was resubmitted again in 1944, with no action taken.  It was submitted, again, as Senate Bill 7 (SB. 7) in 1945.  This Act was passed into law in 1946.

During the course of submission, review and resubmission, a number of statements were made in defense of the procedure being used to, well, refine the Procedures Act.  In an article by Wills Smith, a member of the North Carolina Bar and President of the American Bar Association, he said.  “A bill of that character in these days required a background of preparation to achieve such acceptance.”

Let me point out, here, that within the Congressional Record, many Bar associations, attorneys and CPAs (Certified Public Accountants) were shown to be supportive of the Act.  Why not?  It created a lucrative field from whence they could broaden their client base.

We can look at years of legislative practices that demonstrate that legislation will be submitted, objected to, refused, revised, resubmitted, and on and on, until the concept has been rendered acceptable.  This does not mean that what is first passed will be the ultimate result.  More often, it is simply a way for the Congress to “get their foot in the door”, and, once we, the People, have gotten used to the existence of such an such a program, they can then ‘adopt’ revisions to bring it up to where it was intended to be, in the first place.

The Bill, “Administrative procedure Act”, was submitted by Representative Pat McCarran, Democrat, Nevada, who gave us some insight into its purpose, when he said (from the Congressional Record, March 12, 1946), “We have set up a fourth order in the tripartite plan of government which was initiated by the founding fathers of our democracy.  They set up the executive, the legislative, and the judicial branches; but since that time we have set up fourth dimension, if I may so term it, which is now popularly known as administrative in nature.  So we have the legislative, the executive, the judicial, and the administrative.”

“Perhaps there are reasons for that arrangement.  We found that the legislative branch, although it might enact a law, could not very well administer it.  So the legislative branch enunciated the legal precepts and ordained that commissions or groups should be established by the executive branch with power to promulgate rules and regulations.  These rules and regulations are the very things that impinge upon, curb, or permit the citizen who is touched by the law, as every citizen of this democracy is.

“This is not a Government of man.  It is a Government of law; and this law is a thing which, every day from its enactment until the end of time so for is this Government is concerned, will touch every citizen of the Republic.

“Senate bill 7, the purpose of which is to improve the administration of justice by prescribing fair administrative procedure, is a bill of rights for the hundreds of thousands of Americans whose affairs are controlled or regulated in one way or another by agencies of the Federal government.  It is designed to provide guarantees of due process in administrative procedure.

“The subject of the administrative law and procedure is not expressly mentioned in the constitution, and there is no recognizable body of such law, as there is for the courts in the Judicial Code.

“Problems of administrative law and procedure have been increased and aggravated by the continued growth of the Government, particularly in the executive branch.

Therefore, they have set up the fourth branch of government.  The Constitution established three branches of government.  It also provided means for amendments to the Constitution.  The provision for amendments was intended to modify the Constitution, if it were judged to be insufficient for the purposes.  It did not give the legislative branch, or, the executive branch, the authority to establish a fourth branch of government — that bridged the gap between the legislative and executive, and, created its own judicial branch.

Note, also, that he suggests that hundreds of thousands of Americans will benefit by the creation of these administrative agencies.  He does, however, recognize that there is no “body of such law” in the constitution, though the he does not prescribe a proper remedy.

Finally, he acknowledges that the problem is created by the “continued growth of the Government, particularly in the executive branch”.  So, I suppose, we are to accept that the founding fathers intended for the executive branch to extend ‘outward’ and touch every aspect of our lives.

Later, on May 24 (Congressional Record), Representative John Gwynne of Iowa provides insight into what “rule making” is when he has said, “After a law has been passed by the Congress, before it applies to the individual citizens there are about three steps that must be taken.  First, the bureau having charge of enforcement must write rules and regulations to amplify, interpret, or expand the statute that we passed; rulemaking, we call it.  Second, there must be some procedure whereby the individual citizen who has some contact with the law can be brought before the bureau and his case adjudicated…  Finally, there must be some procedure whereby the individual may appeal to the courts from the action taken by the bureau.“

“Amplify, interpret or expand”?  Pretty much a free hand to extend their authority where the Founding Fathers never contemplated such power.  But, there you have it.  The agencies have become “rule maker” (legislator), judiciary, and overseer of their own activities.

When we think of the Bill of Rights, we think of those areas where the government cannot intrude into our lives.  Those Rights are preserved and sacred.  To assume that the government has created a “bill of rights” within the purview of the administrative agencies is about as preposterous as can be imagined.  Most of the Rights protected by the Bill of Rights have fallen prey to the administrative agencies’ rules, policies, and regulations.  The Due process that is assured by the Constitution is subordinated to agency tribunals rather than courts established in accordance with Article III of the Constitution.

The federal agencies have been established in such a way that their regulations have the effect of law, though they were promulgated by the agencies.  Though most actions by the agencies are subject to review by the Supreme Court, we need to understand what the Court has said, with regard to review of matters that come before it.

From Ashwander v. TVA [297 U.S. 288 (1936)]:

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, concurring.

The Court developed, for its own governance in the cases confessedly within its jurisdiction, a series of rules under which it has avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon it for decision. They are:

1. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of legislation in a friendly, nonadversary, proceeding, declining because to decide such questions ‘is legitimate only in the last resort, and as a necessity in the determination of real, earnest, and vital controversy between individuals.  It never was the thought that, by means of a friendly suit, a party beaten in the legislature could transfer to the courts an inquiry as to the constitutionality of the legislative act

2. The Court will not anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it…  It is not the habit of the court to decide questions of a constitutional nature unless absolutely necessary to a decision of the case.

3. The Court will not formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied.

4. The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of.  This rule has found most varied application.  Thus, if a case can be decided on either of two grounds, one involving a constitutional question, the other a question of statutory construction or general law, the Court will decide only the latter…  Appeals from the highest court of a state challenging its decision of a question under the Federal Constitution are frequently dismissed because the judgment can be sustained on an independent state ground.

5. The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute upon complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its operation…  Among the many applications of this rule, none is more striking than the denial of the right of challenge to one who lacks a personal or property right.  Thus, the challenge by a public official interested only in the performance of his official duty will not be entertained…  In Fairchild v. Hughes, the Court affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by a citizen who sought to have the Nineteenth Amendment declared unconstitutional.  In Massachusetts v. Mellon, the challenge of the federal Maternity Act was not entertained although made by the commonwealth on behalf of all its citizens.

6. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.

7. ‘When the validity of an act of the Congress is drawn in question, and even if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, it is a cardinal principle that this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided.

Understand that these principles laid out in Ashwander were laid out 10 years before the Administrative Procedure Act.  Those in Congress had no doubt that the Constitution would be subordinate to the Administrative Agencies’ rules, regulations, and procedures.

Administrative Agency rules have made slaves of states, by providing funding conditioned on action or activities predicated by the Agencies, without regard to the proper relationship between the States and the federal government (10th Amendment).

The “continued growth of the Government, particularly in the executive branch”, demonstrates the folly that we find ourselves in.  It was determined by the Founding Fathers that we should have a President, not a King.  The function of the President was broad in external matters (foreign policy), and was defined as to carry out the will of the Congress (Legislative Branch) in internal matters.  Instead, the Act has modeled the President, as executive over the Administrative Agencies, a King who can enact rule and regulations which ignore the prohibitions in the Constitution and subordinate both the States (members of the Union) and the People (the sovereigns from which the authority of government evolves) to his will.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

Declaration of Independence

Two classes of Citizen

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 2, 2009
Let’s begin by understanding what some words mean:

Definition of United States:

Blacks Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition

United States.  The term has several meanings.  It may be merely the name of the sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations, it may designate territory over which sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.  [Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, U.S.Ohio, 324 U.S. 652, 65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 89 L.eEd. 1252.]

So, we have:

a)     name of the sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations

b)    designate territory over which sovereignty of the United States extends

c)    collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution

So, when we look at Constitution, Art. II Sec. 1 Cl. 5, we will find:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;”

We need to understand that at this point in our history, every citizen was a citizen of one of the States of the Union (definition “c”).  The Constitution granted Congress the power to “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”, but made no other provision which would allow the United States to have its own citizens.  There would be no need for uniformity if the government were in charge of naturalization; rather, a uniform rule had to be established to apply to the Member States and their naturalization of citizens.  Basically, there was no ground (except the proposed ten miles square) which would constitute a place for citizens to exist, except in the respective states.

Further, Article III, Sec. 2 provides that the supreme Court has judicial power extending to all cases “… between a State and Citizens of another State;{9}–between Citizens of different States,–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”

And, Article IV, Sec 2 provides that “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States,” again, implying only that state Citizens exist.  Note that “of each State” is different, grammatically, than ‘in each state’.  The “of” denotes “that from which anything proceeds; indicating origin, source, [and] descent” [Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition].

It wasn’t until the dilemma of what to do with the guests, recently freed by the Slavery Amendment occurred that a solution needed to be found.  The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, under pressure to the Southern States, to create a class of citizen which would provide for those recently freed.

The Fourteenth Amendment reads, in part:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Interestingly, the Constitution first sets forth the concept of “subject to the jurisdiction of” in that Amendment.  Though I can’t find it, now, I read an assessment of that portion of the Fourteenth that seemed to support that those “orphans” of the war (the freed slaves) went from chattel to persons and, since the states did not allow them citizenship, they became ‘property” of the United States (subject to the jurisdiction of).  That aside, however, since I can’t find support for it, but offer it only as a consideration, along with the rest of what will be presented to demonstrate the point.

It also sets forth, for the first time, a concept of dual citizenship. “[C]itizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside” clearly gives us two jurisdictions of which those affected by the Amendment are included.  The United States (probably “b”, though the cases I will cite are silent as to which it is) and the State (“c”).

So, for the first time in our history we have a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State – dual citizenship.

This begs the question as to whether this imposition of dual citizenship applies to people who would otherwise be citizens – absent the Amendment.  Obviously, citizens of the States existed prior to the ratification, and, since the Amendment does not remove anything that previously existed (repeal an existing law), it would appear that those who were not within the described realm (subject to the jurisdiction thereof) are not subject to the imposition of the dual citizenship status.

It is also interesting to note that subsequent to the Fourteenth Amendment, there is no reference to state citizens, even though the Fourteenth had reaffirmed the existence of that entity.  Is it possible that the subsequent amendments do not apply to those who are state citizens?

Going back to the first cases decided based on citizenship and the Fourteenth Amendment, we find:

Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 74 (1873).

“We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other.”

U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Citizens are the members of the political community to which they belong. They are the people who compose the community, and who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as their collective rights. In the formation of a government, the people may confer upon it such powers as they choose. The government, when so formed, may, and when called upon should, exercise all the powers it has for the protection of the rights of its citizens and the people within its jurisdiction; but it can exercise no other. The duty of a government to afford protection is limited always by the power it possesses for that purpose.

* * * * *

The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two governments: one State, and the other National; but there need be no conflict between the two. The powers which one possesses, the other does not. They are established for different purposes, and have separate jurisdictions. Together they make one whole, and furnish the people of the United States with a complete government, ample for the protection of all their rights at home and abroad. True, it may sometimes happen that a person is amenable to both jurisdictions for one and the same act. Thus, if a marshal of the United States is unlawfully resisted while executing the process of the courts within a State, and the resistance is accompanied by an assault on the officer, the sovereignty of the United States is violated by the resistance, and that of the State by the breach of peace, in the assault. So, too, if one passes counterfeited coin of the United States within a State, it may be an offence against the United States and the State: the United States, because it discredits the coin; and the State, because of the fraud upon him to whom it is passed. This does not, however, necessarily imply that the two governments possess powers in common, or bring them into conflict with each other. It is the natural consequence of a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government. He owes allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres must pay the penalties which each exacts for disobedience to its laws. In return, he can demand protection from each within its own jurisdiction.

Each within its own jurisdiction?  Interesting how the feds seem to have expanded their jurisdiction to wherever they want it to be.

This next case, in the United States supreme Court, deals with a person, over forty years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, who was compelled to testify against himself in a New Jersey court.  He was convicted, and appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court.  The conviction was upheld and the case then went to the United States supreme Court.

Though the court did not address the issue of state citizenship, directly, the jurisdiction of the New Jersey court where the trial was held had determined that, since the defendant was a state citizen, and not a federal citizen under the 14th Amendment, the extension of portions of the Constitutional requirements being imposed on the states by the 14th Amendment did not apply in this case.  This left the Defendant (petitioner) without the protection afforded by the 14th Amendment, and subject to the laws, as they existed in New Jersey, without regard to the 14th.  The supreme Court upheld the lower court.

I will include excerpts from the record which demonstrate the status of the defendant and the court’s indirect agreement to the absence of a nexus to the 14th Amendment. This is supported by both the Court’s opinion and the dissenting opinion – leaving no doubt that there are the two classes of citizen.

TWINING v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 (1908)

Mr. Justice Moody, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court:

* * *

It was argued, inter alia, that the statute abridged the privileges and immunities of the plaintiffs in error as citizens of the United States, and the particular privilege which was alleged to be violated was that of pursuing freely their chosen trade, business, or calling. The majority of the court were not content with expressing the opinion that the act did not in fact deprive the plaintiffs in error of their right to exercise their trade (a proposition vigorously disputed by four dissenting justices), which would have disposed of the case, but preferred to rest the decision upon the broad ground that the right asserted in the case was not a privilege or immunity belonging to persons by virtue of their national citizenship, but, if existing at all, belonging to them only by virtue of their state citizenship. The 14th Amendment, it is observed by Mr. Justice Miller, delivering the opinion of the court, removed the doubt whether there could be a citizenship of the United States independent of citizenship of the state, by recognizing or creating and defining the former. ‘It is quite clear, then,’ he proceeds to say (p. 74), ‘that there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.’ The description of the privileges and immunities of state citizenship, given by Mr. Justice Washington in Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. C. C. 371, Fed. Cas. No. 3,230, is then quoted, approved, and said to include ‘those rights which are fundamental,’ to embrace ‘nearly every civil right for the establishment and protection of which organized government is instituted,’ and ‘to be the class of rights which the state governments were created to establish and secure.’ This part of the opinion then concludes with the holding that the rights relied upon in the case are those which belong to the citizens of states, as such, and are under the sole care and protection of the state governments. The conclusion is preceded by the important declaration that the civil rights theretofore appertaining to citizenship of the states and under the protection of the states were not given the security of national protection by this clause of the 14th Amendment.

* * *

… Due process requires that the court which assumes to determine the rights of parties shall have jurisdiction. [The New Jersey court, since the defendants were State Citizens]

* *

Much might be said in favor of the view that the privilege was guaranteed against state impairment as a privilege and immunity of national citizenship, but, as has been shown, the decisions of this court have foreclosed that view.

* *

We do not pass upon the conflict, because, for the reasons given, we think that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination in the courts of the states [as a State Citizen] is not secured by any part of the Federal Constitution. [Final reason for the decision was an absence of jurisdiction, since the defendants did not come under the 14th Amendment]

* *

Mr. Justice Harlan, dissenting:

* *

That Amendment, it was long ago decided, operated as a restriction on the exercise of powers by the United States or by Federal tribunals and agencies, but did not impose any restraint upon a state or upon a state tribunal or agency. The original Amendments of the Constitution had their origin, as all know, in the belief of many patriotic statesmen in the states then composing the Union, that, under the Constitution, as originally submitted to the people for adoption or rejection, the national government might disregard the fundamental principles of Anglo-American liberty, for the maintenance of which our fathers took up arms against the mother country. [Harlan argues that the protection against self incrimination is inherent in the due process clause, and applies regardless of the 14th Amendment]

The matter of state citizenship has not been brought before the supreme Court, for many years. There are probably two reasons for this:
1) That, as stated above, “as has been shown, the decisions of this court have foreclosed that view”
2) That most subsequent cases (all that I have found) deal, specifically, with Amendments which were ratified after the Fourteenth, and deal with privileges granted to US citizens, such as suffrage, civil rights, etc.

Based upon the above, can there be any doubt that there are, in fact and in law, two classes of citizen in the United States; And, that one can be of one class, the other class, or both classes?

Our Security Team

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
May 10, 2009

Back in about the middle of 1992, a number of us had gotten together.  We were concerned over the future of America and wanted to be prepared for the changes that we expected to come.  Five of us (all men) met and decided to establish a network that could act to protect ourselves and provide aggressive action, if necessary.

We used to meet every Thursday, for lunch.  All would meet at my office and then we would pick a restaurant, rather randomly, so as to minimize the possibility of establishing a pattern that would leave us open to surveillance during our meetings.  Upon arrival at the restaurant, we observed all who come, after our arrival.  Not so much that we were concerned, at the time that we might be watched, rather, to establish a habit so that we were less likely to be subject to scrutiny during our future meetings.

After the third or fourth meeting, one of the members (George Sibley) asked if his common law wife (Lynda Lyon) could become a member, as well.  It was decided that we would have an answer by the next meeting.  We had decided that, once we were established, we would open the door to no new members.

I had not met Lynda, nor had two of the others.  George and the other member, however, had spoken very highly of her, so, by the next meeting, she was brought in to the group.  The decision had been made at the office, so she joined us at that meeting.  Now, we were six.

Something that that we had been discussing and working on developing was creating cells under leadership of each of the members.  Each member could enlist cell members, up to seven in number, which would be subordinate to that member.  George & Lynda opted for a single cell.  Cell members would be recruited, trained, understand that there was a larger unit, but no information about who, where, or anything else, which might jeopardize the other cells, was ever to be presented to the cell members.

Each member was to train his cell, as he saw fit.  We began, however, to work on standardizing the training, so that the best ideas of each of our members could be incorporated into the overall scheme.

We discussed how we would come together in the event that circumstances warranted it.  We picked a location in a heavily forested area northwest of Orlando for the meeting place.  We had arranged our communications so that if that meeting was ever called, by voice communication and contingent signals that we were to meet.

We discussed the possibility of infiltration of the cells.  It was decided that, if we were called up, once the cell was brought together, and long before they had any idea where the meeting place was, that any observable attempt at delay, communication or suspicious activity would warrant the immediate ‘dismissal’ of that cell member.  The whole was too important to observe any rules of etiquette or justice in assuring that all laws done to best provide for the protection of the whole.

George and Lynda began publishing a magazine called “Liberatus” (http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/liberatus.htm ) and I was setting up to begin a newspaper, “Outpost of Freedom” (http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com ).  The others, their names, functions, etc., are not relevant to the remainder of this story.  But, as a concern over whether there would be any attempt to ‘cause trouble’ for any of us, we set up a “dead man switch” phone system, so that if it was suspected that anyone was doing anything risky, or had reason to be concerned, the dead man system was activated.  The persons that we were concerned about would have to contact a designated member, at regular intervals.  That interval would be set, as was deemed best serve the situation.  Provision was made for night time, and sleep.  If the member did not make the call by the required time, the designated contact person would contact the others and efforts would commence to find, or find what happened to the concerned about member.

As it was, I went to Waco on March 5, 1993.  My writings (fax network) were going out to, perhaps, ten thousand people, every night.  We know that we riled the FBI, because they excluded me from Press Conferences after March 21.  Unlike the regular networks, we were contacting Davidians who were no in jail or Mt. Carmel, and digging in to the actions of the FBI.

On April 21, I returned to Florida.  The Security Team had my schedule, and arranged for three members, armed, to be in the airport, outside of the security area, to provide for my protection on returning from Waco.  Though, as it turned out, the Team wasn’t necessary, the exercise was a good one in that it showed that we could and would respond, should the need arise.

My first night back, George and Lynda spent the night with me in a motel, as an additional precaution.

The next day, the dead man calling system was implemented.  I was required to call the designated person every half hour, for the first two days back.  Then we shifted to 1 hour intervals for two days.  Finally, we determined that the need for the calling system no longer existed.

We never did have to call an alert, to gather in the woods with our respective cells.  But, we were able to develop, and test a system to see how it worked.  We found deficiencies, and corrected them.

Though I have only touched on some aspects of the Team, our development was much broader than it appears.  The whole exercise was an invaluable lesson, and one that might provide some ideas to those of you who wish to pursue some sort of organization for your own protection.