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

RE: [tips_and_tricks] Re: HJR-192 repealed - public law 95-147

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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.