Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: HJR-192 repealed - public law 95-147

Expand Messages
  • Lola
    I think the suggestion below is sound. I believe Handyman earlier stated that one of the remedies against a $ judgment was to motion the judge to define
    Message 1 of 20 , Dec 31, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I think the suggestion below is sound.  I believe Handyman earlier stated that one of the remedies against a "$" judgment was to motion the judge to define what "$x,xxx" means while filing a judicial notice on the meaning of money as defined by the law of the land.
       


      Ron Goodger <lrgoodger@...> wrote:
      I agree with Frog Farmer, the FRN as legal tender issue needs tested, but I urge caution.  It needs done properly by one of our more experienced members (like FF or Handyman) to keep from losing and setting a bad precedent.  If a more inexperienced member is going to do it, then all of us need to work on the procedure together with him as a group to prevent this.
      The discussion so far on this topic has been in bits and pieces.  I have yet to see a point by point articulation of the argument supported by statutes and case law.
      Ron

      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      http://mail.yahoo.com

    • Michael Noonan
      ... Okay. If Congress adjorned without assigning a day for a further meeting, there must have been some reason for doing so. It doesn t make sense that
      Message 2 of 20 , Jan 4, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        --- Frog Farmer <frogfrmr@...> wrote:

        >3. An executive used his power to manipulate the
        >military against Americans, and violated too many
        >constitutional provisions to count, under the guise
        >of an "emergency". Congress adjourned "sine die".
        >That constitutional congress has never met again.


        Okay. If Congress adjorned without assigning a day
        for a further meeting, there must have been some
        reason for doing so.

        It doesn't make sense that Congress would just walk
        away.

        There is till a "Congress," of SOME kind that
        eventually convened.

        Would that "Congress" have met anew without
        explaining itself?





        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
        http://mail.yahoo.com
      • Michael Noonan
        How about this? I do not know why Congress walked out, en masse, that in itself an unusual occurance, but apparently they did. Still, why all would agree to
        Message 3 of 20 , Jan 5, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          How about this?

          I do not know why Congress walked out, en masse, that
          in itself an unusual occurance, but apparently they
          did. Still, why all would agree to such a crucial
          ramification is bothersome.

          Then, I wondered, what would have replaced the
          Constitutional Congress? Perhaps this is where the
          Congress of Art 1 section 8, clause 17 comes in, would
          be my answer, and this country has been under Federal
          municipal rule ever since, would be one conclusion.

          Any other opinions, speculations may clarify the
          actual events.

          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
          http://mail.yahoo.com
        • brokenwrench
          your answer lies in the history books read what happened in the congress between 1860-1879.after the civil war was over the states were put under martial rule
          Message 4 of 20 , Jan 5, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            your answer lies  in the history books read what happened in the congress between 1860-1879.after the civil war was over the states were put under martial rule and their government reps were assigned by the feds.(carpetbaggers)

            Michael Noonan <mn_chicago@...> wrote:

            How about this?

            I do not know why Congress walked out, en masse, that
            in itself an unusual occurance, but apparently they
            did. Still, why all would agree to such a crucial
            ramification is bothersome.

            Then, I wondered, what would have replaced the
            Constitutional Congress? Perhaps this is where the
            Congress of Art 1 section 8, clause 17 comes in, would
            be my answer, and this country has been under Federal
            municipal rule ever since, would be one conclusion.

            Any other opinions, speculations may clarify the
            actual events.

            ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
            http://mail. yahoo.com

          • mn_chicago
            I believe this adequately explains most of the surrounding circumstances...finally. Senate Report 93-549 War and Emergency Powers Acts, Executive Orders and
            Message 5 of 20 , Jan 8, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              I believe this adequately explains most of the
              surrounding circumstances...finally.

              Senate Report 93-549
              War and Emergency Powers Acts,
              Executive Orders and the New World Order


              The Introduction to Senate Report 93-549 (93rd
              Congress, 1st Session, 1973) summarizes the situation.

              "A majority of the people of the United States have
              lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 73
              years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed
              by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been
              abridged by laws brought into force by states of
              national emergency. The problem of how a
              constitutional democracy reacts to great crises,
              however, far antedates the Great Depression. As a
              philosophical issue, its origins reach back to the
              Greek city-states and the Roman Republic. And, in the
              United States, actions taken by the Government in
              times of great crises have - from, at least, the Civil
              War - in important ways, shaped the present phenomenon
              of a permanent state of national emergency."


              The Foreword to the Report states in part -


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

              These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of
              Federal law [hundreds more since 1973, particularly in
              the Clinton administration since Jan 21, 1993]. These
              hundreds of statutes delegate to the President
              extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the
              Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens
              in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range
              of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to
              rule the country without reference to normal
              Constitutional processes.

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


              [Here comes the explanation that eluded me as to how/
              why the entire Congress would act as one...they had no
              choice]

              When the Southern states walked out of Congress on
              March 27, 1861, the quorum to conduct business under
              the Constitution was lost. The only votes that
              Congress could lawfully take, under Parliamentary Law,
              were those to set the time to reconvene, take a vote
              to get a quorum, and vote to adjourn and set a date,
              time, and place to reconvene at a later time, but
              instead, Congress abandoned the House and Senate
              without setting a date to reconvene. Under the
              parliamentary law of Congress, when this happened,
              Congress became sine die (pronounced see-na dee-a;
              literally "without day") and thus when Congress
              adjourned sine die, it ceased to exist as a lawful
              deliberative body, and the only lawful, constitutional
              power that could declare war was no longer lawful, or
              in session.

              The Southern states, by virtue of their secession from
              the Union, also ceased to exist sine die, and some
              state legislatures in the Northern bloc also adjourned
              sine die, and thus, all the states which were parties
              to creating the Constitution ceased to exist.
              President Lincoln executed the first executive order
              written by any President on April 15, 1861, Executive
              Order 1, and the nation has been ruled by the
              President under executive order ever since. When
              Congress eventually did reconvene, it was reconvened
              under the military authority of the Commander-in-Chief
              and not by Rules of Order for Parliamentary bodies or
              by Constitutional Law; placing the American people
              under martial rule ever since that national emergency
              declared by President Lincoln. The Constitution for
              the United States of America temporarily ceased to be
              the law of the land, and the President, Congress, and
              the Courts unlawfully presumed that they were free to
              remake the nation in their own image, whereas,
              lawfully, no constitutional provisions were in place
              which afforded power to any of the actions which were
              taken which presumed to place the nation under the new
              form of control.

              President Lincoln knew that he had no authority to
              issue any executive order, and thus he commissioned
              General Orders No. 100 (April 24, 1863) as a special
              field code to govern his actions under martial law and
              which justified the seizure of power, which extended
              the laws of the District of Columbia, and which
              fictionally implemented the provisions of Article I,
              Section 8, Clauses 17-18 of the Constitution beyond
              the boundaries of Washington, D.C. and into the
              several states. General Orders No. 100, also called
              the Lieber Instructions and the Lieber Code, extended
              The Laws of War and International Law onto American
              soil, and the United States government became the
              presumed conqueror of the people and the land.

              Martial rule was kept secret and has never ended, the
              nation has been ruled under Military Law by the
              Commander of Chief of that military; the President,
              under his assumed executive powers and according to
              his executive orders. Constitutional law under the
              original Constitution is enforced only as a matter of
              keeping the public peace under the provisions of
              General Orders No. 100 under martial rule. Under
              Martial Law, title is a mere fiction, since all
              property belongs to the military except for that
              property which the Commander-in-Chief may, in his
              benevolence, exempt from taxation and seizure and upon
              which he allows the enemy to reside.

              [Here is where I have to part company with Frogger on
              his indictment of Lincoln as a traitor to this
              country. Lincoln opposed the bankers who wanted to
              have him finance the Civil War though them. He opted,
              instead, to issue US Notes that carried no interest.
              Had Lincoln lived, I believe he would have rectified
              the situation and reverse the only option he believed
              he could exercise to hold the country together.]

              President Lincoln was assassinated before he could
              complete plans for reestablishing constitutional
              government in the Southern States and end the martial
              rule by executive order, and the 14th Article in
              Amendment to the Constitution created a new
              citizenship status for the new expanded jurisdiction.
              New laws for the District of Columbia were established
              and passed by Congress in 1871, supplanting those
              established Feb. 27, 1801 and May 3, 1802. The
              District of Columbia was re-incorporated in 1872, and
              all states in the Union were reformed as Franchisees
              of the Federal Corporation so that a new Union of the
              United States could be created. The key to when the
              states became Federal Franchisees is related to the
              date when such states enacted the Field Code in law.
              The Field Code was a codification of the common law
              that was adopted first by New York and then by
              California in 1872, and shortly afterwards the Lieber
              Code was used to bring the United States into the 1874

              Brussels Conference and into the Hague Conventions of
              1899 and 1907.

              In 1917, the Trading with the Enemy Act (Public Law
              65-91, 65th Congress, Session I, Chapters 105, 106,
              October 6, 1917) was passed and which defined,
              regulated and punished trading with enemies, who were
              then required by that act to be licensed by the
              government to do business. The National Banking System

              Act (Public Law 73-1, 73rd Congress, Session I,
              Chapter 1, March 9, 1933), Executive Proclamation 2038

              March 6, 1933), Executive Proclamation 2039 (March 9,

              1933), and Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111 and 6260
              prove that in 1933, the United States Government
              formed under the executive privilege of the original
              martial rule went bankrupt, and a new state of
              national emergency was declared under which United
              States citizens were named as the enemy to the
              government and the banking system as per the
              provisions of the Trading with the Enemy Act. The
              legal system provided for in the Constitution was
              formally changed in 1938 through the Supreme Court
              decision in the case of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins,

              304 US 64, 82 L.Ed. 1188.

              On April 25, 1938, the Supreme Court overturned the
              standing precedents of the prior 150 years
              concerning "COMMON LAW" in the federal government.


              THERE IS NO FEDERAL COMMON LAW, AND CONGRESS HAS NO
              POWER TO DECLARE SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF COMMON LAW
              applicable IN A STATE, WHETHER they be LOCAL or
              GENERAL in their nature, be they COMMERCIAL LAW or a
              part of LAW OF TORTS." (See: ERIE RAILROAD CO. vs.
              THOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L. Ed. 1188)
              The significance is that since the Erie Decision, no
              cases are allowed to be cited that are prior to 1938.
              There can be no mixing of the old law with the new
              Law. The Common Law is the fountain source of
              Substantive and Remedial Rights, if not our very
              Liberties. (See also: Who is Running America?)


              [This is a shocker!!!]

              In 1945 the United States gave up any remaining
              national sovereignty when it signed the United Nations

              Treaty, making all American citizens subject to United

              Nations jurisdiction. The "constitution" of the United

              Nations may be compared to that of the old Soviet > Union.
            • mn_chicago
              Given that HJR-192 was repealed in the 1970s, the more interesting aspect is now to figure out why. There certainly was a very specific reason for its
              Message 6 of 20 , Jan 8, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Given that HJR-192 was repealed in the 1970s, the more interesting
                aspect is now to figure out why. There certainly was a very specific
                reason for its implementation, and there is undoubtedly another very
                specific reason for having it repealed, especially on the quiet.

                This would seem unprecedented in monetary history, where a nation's
                "currency" was purposefully changed from specie backing to fiat, only
                to have the original change repealed prior to the fiat collapsing.

                Any thoughts?
              • Moisha Pippik
                mn_chicago wrote:
                Message 7 of 20 , Jan 8, 2007
                • 0 Attachment

                  mn_chicago wrote:
                   
                  <The significance is that since the Erie Decision, no
                  <cases are allowed to be cited that are prior to 1938.
                  <There can be no mixing of the old law with the new
                  <Law. The Common Law is the fountain source of
                  <Substantive and Remedial Rights, if not our very
                  <Liberties. (See also: Who is Running America?)
                  I have heard this statement before, however, this bares the question that if this is true, why is Miranda being used, and Erie, since the precedence claimed happened after the case took place.   
                   
                  I do agree that we cannot mix old law with new law, but if the old law is good, why mix it with new, unlawful laws(nice axiom).  Congress hasn't been in session since 1870?  Abraham Lincoln made some new general orders, this is all the same game folks, smoke and mirrors, fiction, fiction, fiction.  I believe the correct thing is you cannot mix real with false.  Correct me if I'm wrong Bear.
                   
                  Moisha
                   
                   
                   
                   

                  __________________________________________________
                  Do You Yahoo!?
                  Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                  http://mail.yahoo.com

                • brokenwrench
                  In 33 the Fed gov leased all the gold to bail out the Continetal Bank of Chicago which was 50/50 owned by the Vatican and the royal family of England.the bank
                  Message 8 of 20 , Jan 8, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                     In 33 the Fed gov leased all the gold to bail out the Continetal
                    Bank of Chicago which was 50/50 owned by the Vatican and the royal
                    family of England.the bank was wiped out in rthe stock market crash
                    and bankrupted the Vatican and the throne of England. So we bailed
                    them out.
                      Prescott Bush was the head of the Bank of New York that
                    made the transfer to a bank in Berlin that transfed  the leases to the
                    Central Italian bank. Mussolini handed the Pope the check.
                      Prescott Bush was the first person convicted under the Tradeing with the Enemy Act and
                    sentenced to 6 years for his part in this.
                    >    the lease expired in 77


                    mn_chicago <mn_chicago@...> wrote:
                    Given that HJR-192 was repealed in the 1970s, the more interesting
                    aspect is now to figure out why. There certainly was a very specific
                    reason for its implementation, and there is undoubtedly another very
                    specific reason for having it repealed, especially on the quiet.

                    This would seem unprecedented in monetary history, where a nation's
                    "currency" was purposefully changed from specie backing to fiat, only
                    to have the original change repealed prior to the fiat collapsing.

                    Any thoughts?


                  • Joey T.
                    Law is Law! Public Policy is not Law! You can t mix apples and oranges! The Law that is still in action is the Archain Law or the Ancient Law that is
                    Message 9 of 20 , Jan 8, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                       
                       Law is Law!  Public Policy is not Law!  You can't mix apples and oranges!  The Law that is still in action is the "Archain Law"  or the "Ancient Law" that is forever settled.  It's like the footer on a house.  It's forever Settled, whereas Public Policy is waving to and frow like a storm tossed wave!
                       
                      Joey-T.: 
                      -------Original Message-------
                       
                      Date: 01/08/07 19:26:13
                      Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: HJR-192 repealed - public law 95-147
                       


                      mn_chicago wrote:
                       
                      <The significance is that since the Erie Decision, no
                      <cases are allowed to be cited that are prior to 1938.
                      <There can be no mixing of the old law with the new
                      <Law. The Common Law is the fountain source of
                      <Substantive and Remedial Rights, if not our very
                      <Liberties. (See also: Who is Running America?)
                      I have heard this statement before, however, this bares the question that if this is true, why is Miranda being used, and Erie, since the precedence claimed happened after the case took place.   
                       
                      I do agree that we cannot mix old law with new law, but if the old law is good, why mix it with new, unlawful laws(nice axiom).  Congress hasn't been in session since 1870?  Abraham Lincoln made some new general orders, this is all the same game folks, smoke and mirrors, fiction, fiction, fiction.  I believe the correct thing is you cannot mix real with false.  Correct me if I'm wrong Bear.
                       
                      Moisha
                       
                       
                       
                       

                      ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __
                      Do You Yahoo!?
                      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                      http://mail. yahoo.com

                       
                      FREE Emoticons for your email - By IncrediMail! Click Here!
                    • chemelt
                      I beleive it is so that they can say that you were using FRNs Voluntarily since you were NOT being compelled by HR 192 to use them.
                      Message 10 of 20 , Jan 9, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I beleive it is so that they can say that you were using FRNs
                        Voluntarily since you were NOT being compelled by HR 192 to use them.


                        --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "mn_chicago" <mn_chicago@...>
                        wrote:
                        >
                        > Given that HJR-192 was repealed in the 1970s, the more interesting
                        > aspect is now to figure out why. There certainly was a very specific
                        > reason for its implementation, and there is undoubtedly another very
                        > specific reason for having it repealed, especially on the quiet.
                        >
                        > This would seem unprecedented in monetary history, where a nation's
                        > "currency" was purposefully changed from specie backing to fiat, only
                        > to have the original change repealed prior to the fiat collapsing.
                        >
                        > Any thoughts?
                        >
                      • Michael Noonan
                        ... Yeah. Try that argument next time in front of a public policy court.
                        Message 11 of 20 , Jan 10, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- "Joey T." <ieajt@...> wrote:

                          >
                          > Law is Law! Public Policy is not Law! You can't
                          > mix apples and oranges!
                          > The Law that is still in action is the "Archain Law"
                          > or the "Ancient Law"
                          > that is forever settled.

                          Yeah. Try that argument next time in front of a
                          "public policy" court.



                          ____________________________________________________________________________________
                          Cheap talk?
                          Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
                          http://voice.yahoo.com
                        • Frog Farmer
                          ... Why would one who cared about his own rights voluntarily enter a public policy court? I think there s an old maxim to the effect of one is not dragged
                          Message 12 of 20 , Jan 10, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Michael Noonan [mailto:mn_chicago@...] wrote:

                            > Yeah. Try that argument next time in front of a
                            > "public policy" court.

                            Why would one who cared about his own rights voluntarily enter a public
                            policy court?

                            I think there's an old maxim to the effect of "one is not dragged into
                            equity in chains". A courtroom filled with the same 100 people during
                            the same three hour period could be any one or more of several "courts"
                            depending upon who was saying what to whom. A photo is insufficient to
                            confirm the type of court the courtroom is currently servicing.

                            Regards,

                            FF
                          • Michael Noonan
                            ... For anyone who took me seriously, the response was a bit facetious to Law is Law! Public Policy is not law!
                            Message 13 of 20 , Jan 11, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- Frog Farmer <frogfrmr@...> wrote:

                              > Why would one who cared about his own rights
                              > voluntarily enter a public
                              > policy court?
                              >

                              For anyone who took me seriously, the response was a
                              bit facetious to Law is Law! Public Policy is not law!



                              ____________________________________________________________________________________
                              Do you Yahoo!?
                              Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
                              http://new.mail.yahoo.com
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.