Traficant's "bankruptcy" of the US & a patriot lie
- This was sent to me by Larry Becraft (becraft(at)hiwaay.net), an attorney
"Many years ago, somebody circulated an utterly false argument about the
bankruptcy of the US; that party asserted that Congressman James
**Traficant stated on a specific page of the Congressional Record that
the US went into bankruptcy in 1933. I provide below a link to that
original contention. However, I pulled that exact page from the
Congressional Record to show that this assertion was nothing but a
bald-faced lie, that is now believed by countless numbers of
ill-informed people. A link to that actual page of **the Congressional
Record** is also provided below, via the below excerpt from a page on my
"Please, I am not interested in personal opinions or wild-assed theories,
etc. Where is the legal proof about this alleged bankruptcy? Where is
the bankruptcy petition of the United States filed? Who are the
trustees? Who are the accountants (surely you have to have accountants
for the largest and longest existing bankruptcy in the history of the
world!!! And those accountants certainly are not those employed by IRS!!
"Please, provide solid proof. Remember, it is the gurus spreading the
lies, not lawyers.
"XXI. The 'bankruptcy of the United States" as alleged by "congressman"
"* I have heard people discuss statements by "congressman" Traficant
allegedly made back in 1993 where he stated in the Congressional Record
<http://home.hiwaay.net/%7Ebecraft/CRTraficant.htm> that the US was
bankrupt and this bankruptcy happened back in 1933. This statement has
been used to support UCC arguments about the bankruptcy of the United
"* Frank F. checked the accuracy of this alleged Traficant statement
and found it to be utterly false. Here is what he said in a recent e-mail:*
" *This is 99% bogus.*
"* You'll notice that it claims to be from the Congressional Record
of March 17, 1993, page H-1303, and a speech from Rep. James
Traficant (D-Oh). It starts with a double quote mark and it ends
much later with another double quote mark.*
"* Except for the first paragraph (the first 66 words), it is a fake.*
"* Traficant's own words run from "Mr. Speaker ...." to " ... our
demise" and that's the only portion from him or from the
"* Trafficant was arguing against deficit spending, and everything
else in the article (starting from the words "It is an established
fact ...") is fake. Traficant never said them.*
"* In fact, if Traficant thought that the Banking Emergency Act of
1933 was Public Law 89-719, we'd all have reason to doubt his
soundness of mind, because the Public Law number is clearly decades
after 1933 -- in fact it is the number of the Federal Tax Lien Act
of 1966. Ditto for the pretended title and description of HJR 192
(of 1933). All of that, including the references to canon law and
maritime insurance, is fakery, falsely attributed to Traficant.*
"* The actual page from the Congressional Record is here
<http://home.hiwaay.net/%7Ebecraft/JTraficant.pdf>. Please excuse the
copy quality of this PDF file as it was obtained from microfiche. This
page proves that those who allege that Traficant made this statement are
not telling the truth.*
"* Please also notice that the fake Traficant statement makes certain
*1. "The United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the
Emergency banking Act, March 9, 1933";*
*2. That HJR 192 was a part of the bankruptcy;*
*3. That the 1913 Federal Reserve Act was effective back to 1870, many
years before that act was adopted.*
"* These congressional acts have been posted on my site. The Emergency
Banking Act <http://home.hiwaay.net/%7Ebecraft/EmergBankAct.pdf> and HJR
192 <http://home.hiwaay.net/%7Ebecraft/HJR192.pdf> are posted, as is the
1913 Federal Reserve Act
<http://home.hiwaay.net/%7Ebecraft/FedResAct.pdf>. Please read these
acts to deteremine whether these allegations are true. Reading them
discloses that the allegations are false. The password for the Emergency
Banking Act and Federal Reserve Act is "Becraft" (with a capital "B")."
Legalbear's PHONE #s: 970-613-8866/720-203-5142 c. Skype-legalbear
Bear's Yahoo group: Tips <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tips_and_tricks/> &
Tricks for Court
BEAR'S WEB PAGES: <http://www.irs-armory.com> www.irs-armory.com
For mailing: Excellence Unlimited, 2661 W. 46th St., Loveland, CO 80538
- Bear - allegedly the declaration from the Congressional record regarding Trafficant's declaration is reproduced here:
The Bankruptcy of The United States
United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993
Vol. 33, page H-1303
Although I am not a photoshop expert, it does not appear to me to be altered or modified.
The operative statement that appears in Becrafts pdf and the one I have included is the following statement:
"Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government."
I will acknowledge, that I have not had personal access to the private transactions of the United States, nor the United States of America. Even Carrol Quigley only had access to the records of the world's elite for only two years. However, since we are speaking about Bankrupcty, lets look to the few things that we do know.
"CONSTITUTOR, civil law. He who promised by a simple pact to pay the debt of another; and this is always a principal obligation. Inst. 4, 6, 9." Bouvier's Dictionary of Law 1856.
"CONSTITUTION, contracts. The constitution of a contract, is the making of the contract as, the written constitution of a debt. 1 Bell's Com. 332, 5th ed."Bouvier's Dictionary of Law 1856.
"STATUTES STAPLE, English law. The statute of the staple, 27 Ed. HI. stat. 2, confined the sale of all commodities to be exported to certain towns in England, called estaple or staple, where foreigners might resort. It authorized a security for money, commonly called statute staple, to be taken by traders for the benefit of commerce; the mayor of the place is entitled to take a recognizance of a debt, in proper form, which has the effect to convey the lands of the debtor to the creditor, till out of the rents and profits of them he may be satisfied. 2 Bl. Com. 160; Cruise, Dig. tit. 14, s. 10; 2 Rolle's Ab. 446; Bac. Ab. Execution, B. 1 4 Inst. 238."Bouvier's Dictionary of Law 1856.
US Constitution Article 1 Section 8. "The Congress shall have power to ... borrow money on the credit of the United States;"
US Constitution Article 1 Section 10. "No state shall ... pass any ... law impairing the obligation of contracts,..."
US Constitution Article VI "All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation."
Now, look through the debt history of the Confederation of States.
"It is agreed and certified that the sums advanced by His Majesty to the Congress of the United States under the title of a loan, in the years 1778, 1779, 1780, 1781, and the present 1782, amount to the sum of eighteen million of livres, money of France, according to the following twenty-one receipts of the above-mentioned underwritten Minister of Congress,..." Contract Between the King and the Thirteen United States of North America, signed at Versailles July 16, 1782.
"ARTICLE 4th It is agreed that Creditors on either side, shall meet with no lawful Impediment to the Recovery of the full value in Sterling Money of all bond fide Debts heretofore contracted." Preliminary Articles of Peace : November 30, 1782
"The reestablished peace between the belligerent powers, the advantages of a free commerce to all parts of the globe, and the independence ofthe thirteen United States of North America, acknowledged and founded on a solid and honorable basis, rendered it probable that the said States would be in a condition to provide hereafter for their necessities, by means of the resources within themselves, without being compelled to implore the continuation of the succors which the King has so liberally granted during the war; but the Minister Plenipotentiaryof the said United States to His Majesty having represented to him the exhausted state to which they have been reduced by a long and disastrous war, His Majesty has condescended to take into consideration the request made by the aforesaid Minister in the name of the Congress of the said States for a new advance of money to answer numerous purposes of urgent and indispensable expenses in the course of the present year; His Majesty has, in consequence, determined,not withstanding the no less pressing necessities of his own service, to grant to Congress a new pecuniary assistance, which he has fixed at thesum of six millions livres tournois, under the title of loan and under the guaranty of the whole thirteen United States, which the Minister of Congress has declared his acceptance of, with the liveliest acknowledgments in the name of the said States.
And as it is necessary to the good order of His Majesty's finances, andalso useful to the operations of the finances of the United States, toassign periods for payment of the six millions Iivres in question, and to regulate the conditions and terms of reimbursement, which should bemade at His Majesty's royal treasury at Paris after the manner of whathas been stipulated for the preceding advances by former contract of the 16th July, 1782-" Contract between the King and the Thirteen United States of North America February 25, 1783
"ARTICLE, I. In Satisfaction and Discharge of the Money which the United States might have been liable to pay in Pursuance of the Provisions of the said Sixth Article,which is hereby declared to be cancelled and annulled, except so far asthe same may relate to the Execution of the said Seventh Article; theUnited States of America hereby engage to pay, and His BritannicMajesty consents to accept for the Use of the Persons described in thesaid Sixth Article," Convention Regarding Articles 6 and 7 of the Jay Treaty and Article 4 of the Definitive Treaty of Peace signed at London January 8,1802.
DISCHARGE OF A CONTRACT. The act of making a contract or agreement null. 2. Contracts may be discharged by, 1. Payment. 2. Accord and satisfaction. 8 Com. Dig. 917; 1 Nels. Abr. 18; 1 Lilly's Reg. 10, 16; Hall's Dig. 7 1 Poth. Ob. 345. 3. Release. 8 Com. Dig. 906; 3 Nels. Ab. 69; 18 Vin. Ab. 294; 1 Vin. Abr. 192; 2 Saund. 48, a; Gow. on Partn. 225, 230; 15 Serg. & Rawle, 441; 1 Poth Ob. 897. 4. Set off. 8 Vin. Ab. 556, Discount; Hall's Dig. 226, 496; 7 Com. Dig. 335, Pleader, 2 G 17; 1 Poth. Ob. 408. 5. The rescission of the contracts. 1 Com. Dig. 289, note x; 8 Com. Dig. 349; Chit. on Contr. 276. 6. Extinguishment. 7 Vin: Abr. 367; 14 Serg. & Rawle, 209, 290; 8 Com. Dig. 394; 2 Nels. Abr. 818; 18 Vin. Abr. 493 to 515; 11 Vin. Abr. 461. 7. Confusion, where the duty to pay and the right to receive unite in the same person. 8 Serg. & Rawle, 24-30 1 Poth. 425. 8. Extinction, or the loss of the subject matter of the contract. Bac. Abr. 48 8 Com. Dig. *349; 1 Poth. Ob. 429. 9. Defeasance. 2 Saund. 47, n. note 1. 10. The inability of one of the parties to fulfil his part. Hall's Dig. 40. 11. The death of the contractor, as where he undertook to teach an apprentice. 12. Bankruptcy. 13. By the act of limitations. 14. By lapse of time. Angell on Adv. Enjoym. passim; 15 Vin. Abr. 52, 99; 2 Saund. 63, n. b; Id. 66, n. 8; Id. 67, n. 10; Gow on Partn. 235; 1, Poth. 443, 449. 15. By neglecting to give notice to the, person charged. Chit. on Bills, 245. 16. By releasing one of two partners. See Receipt. 17. By neglecting to sue the principal at the request of the surety, the latter is discharged. 8 Serg. & Rawle, 110. 18. By the discharge of a defendant, who has been arrested under a capias ad satisfaciendum. 8 Cowen, R. 171. 19. By a certificate and discharge under the bankrupt laws. Act of Congress of August, 1841. Bouvier's Dictionary of Law 1856.
Here is your first evidences of the bankruptcy. The Thirteen United States of North America was bankrupt one year after the acknowledgement of the series of loans recieved by them from Prince George the Third, by the gr-ce of G-d, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch-treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc.,and of the United States of America.
They could not even repay the monies owed from the the Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation, of the "..Sum of Six Hundred Thousand Pounds Sterling, payable at the Times and Place, and in the Manner following, that is to say, the said Sum of Six Hundred Thousand Pounds Sterling shall be paid at the City of Washington, in three annual Installments of Two Hundred Thousand Pounds Sterling each,..." despite the fact that the King gave them installment payments.
Can an entity only be bankrupt by declaration (i.e. an administrative or judicial process) or can an entity be bankrupt simply by it's inability to pay its debts?
Remember Trafficant's declaration, "Mr Speaker, we are here now in Chapter 11."? As I understand Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the debtor is the fiduciary for the bankruptcy and exercises the rights of the claimant on their behalf. It's like punishment from your parents by being sent to your room, which by the way is where you have all of your fun stuff.
The trail starts here, now go and follow the money ... where is the evidence that those loans ever repaid?
- Isn't it FUNNY that the author TOTALLY IGNORED the other DEFINITION
of "constitution" LISTED in the 1856 Edition of BOUVIER'S LAW
CONSTITUTION,, government. The fundamental law of the state,
containing the principles upon which the government is founded, and
regulating the divisions of the sovereign powers, directing to what
persons each of these powers is to be confided, and the, manner it is
to be exercised as, the Constitution of the United States. See Story
on the Constitution; Rawle on the Const.
2. The words constitution and government (q. v.) are sometimes
employed to express the same idea, the manner in which sovereignty is
exercised in each state. Constitution is also the name of the
instrument containing the fundamental laws of the state.
3. By constitution, the civilians, and, from them, the common law
writers, mean some particular law; as the constitutions of the
emperors contained in the Code.
Patrick in California
--- In email@example.com, Baruch HaShem
> "CONSTITUTION, contracts. The constitution of a contract, is themaking of the contract as, the written constitution of a debt. 1
Bell's Com. 332, 5th ed."Bouvier's Dictionary of Law 1856.
Here is Larry Becraft's response:
As evidence that the US went "bankrupt" in 1933, some party "invented"
"proof" in reference thereto, and based it on a page from the 1993 Congressional Record. I have posted to my website that original contention here:
People believed this actual document. I then copied and posted the actual page of the Congressional Record here:
If you compare the original with the fake, you can see that the "fake"
is what it is: a lie.
The original I posted is almost identical with the one posted at GemWorld. The GemWorld post comes from the daily version of the Congressional Record, and my posted copy is from the annual volume of the Congressional Record; there are slight printing differences.
Traficant was not stating that, as a matter of law, the US went bankrupt; he was speaking in moral terms. Morally, I agree that we "are bankrupt" but this is not the legal sense. I have asked a large number of advocates of the "1933 bankruptcy" for proof, and none have provided it. This argument was invented and is one of the rumors that lots of people believe without any proof.
In reference to that contention about the Revolutionary loans, I have posted on my website the following:
This directly addresses this erroneous contention. That loan came from France, not the King of England.
Please send this note to the party whose information you sent to me that appears below.
> Larry: I sent your post containing the subject line "Traficant ' s
> "bankruptcy" of the US & a patriot lie" to my group Tips & Tricks for
> Court and received this response:
> Bear - allegedly the declaration from the Congressional record
> regarding Trafficant ' s declaration is reproduced here:
> *The Bankruptcy of The United States *
> *United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page
Bear ' s Yahoo group: Tips & Tricks for Court
For mailing: Excellence Unlimited, 2661 W. 46th St., Loveland, CO 80538
- Bear - I will respond to this forum as I do not have Mr. Becraft's email address, and I suspect that he is a very busy man. I want to declare immediately that I appreciate Mr. Becraft's work and have been the beneficiary in understanding some legal issues based upon his work.The earlier posting was not intended to create hostility but to bring forward evidences that were notstated in the first posting. In this response, I also am convinced that there are evidences that need to be inserted into Mr. Becraft's reply.Here is Larry Becraft's response:As evidence that the US went "bankrupt" in 1933, some party "invented" "proof" in reference thereto, and based it on a page from the 1993 Congressional Record. I have posted to my website that original contention here: http://home. hiwaay.net/ %7Ebecraft/ CRTraficant. htmPeople believed this actual document. I then copied and posted the actual page of the Congressional Record here: http://home. hiwaay.net/ %7Ebecraft/ JTraficant. pdf If you compare the original with the fake, you can see that the "fake" is what it is: a lie.
The original I posted is almost identical with the one posted at GemWorld. The GemWorld post comes from the daily version of the Congressional Record, and my posted copy is from the annual volume of the Congressional Record; there are slight printing differences.Here Mr. Becraft acknowledges that both are legitimate source documents from the Congressional Record with the only variance coming from a different publication date. I suspect although I have not verified this, that there is an insignificant variance between these documents. The quotes that I used in the original posting were quotes where both documents were in agreement.Traficant was not stating that, as a matter of law, the US went bankrupt; he was speaking in moral terms. Morally, I agree that we "are bankrupt" but this is not the legal sense. I have asked a large number of advocates of the "1933 bankruptcy" for proof, and none have provided it. This argument was invented and is one of the rumors that lots of people believe without any proof.From the documents provided, I am not qualified to declare whether the Honorable Mr. Trafficant was making a statement as a matter of law, or as a matter of morals. But, the question put forward without a response from Mr. Becraft is:"Can an entity be bankrupt only by declaration?(i.e and adminstrative or judicial decree?) or can they be bankrupt simply by their in ability to pay their debts?"In both documents, (the one I put forth and the one Mr. Becraft offers) this statement can be found, "Mr. Speaker, we are here now in Chapter 11." This seems a rather strange declaration if the bankruptcy was only moral. I too have asked for the proof of a 1933 bankruptcy and have yet to see documents to that effect."In 1933, when Roosevelt became president, the United States had the largest gold reserves of any nation in the world. He announced on March 8, 1933, a few days after taking office, that the gold standard was safe. But three days later, he issued an executive order forbidding gold payments by banks; Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr., announced on March 11 that 'the provision is aimed at those who continue to retain quantities of gold and thereby hinder the Governments plans for a restoration of public confidence.'[i]If I see the trees bend with my eyes and hear a swishing sound in my ears, that does give rise to the suspicion of a force excerpting itself in nature although I cannot see it. Some would boldly declare that is was the wind. I could retort, Then show me the wind, I want to see it with my own eyes. Wind you cannot see, but the effects of the wind are apparent to all.Some times I wait patiently for years to acquire evidence of an effect in history. I suspect this may also be the case for this issue.
In reference to that contention about the Revolutionary loans, I have posted on my website the following: http://home. hiwaay.net/ %7Ebecraft/ WeAintBrits. htm This directly addresses this erroneous contention. That loan came from France, not the King of England.I never denied that the loan of the silver came from France . But two issues that are not addressed in Becrafts article are the title of Prince George the Third in The Paris Peace Treaty of September 3, 1783[ii] is the King of England and the King of France. most potent Prince George the Third , by the gr-ce of G-d, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch-treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc.,And, in the Contract Between the King and the Thirteen United States of North America, signed at Versailles July 16, 1782[iii], the contract loan documents are established and the Thirteen United States of North American acknowledge a debt of eighteen millions of livres tournois. The contracting party is only called the King or His Most Christian Majesty who has a royal treasury of His Majesty at Paris . In a cursory reading this could either represent Prince George the Third, or the Pope. I do not have any evidence present to declare with specificity as to who the King actually is.Despite answers that deviate from the subject line of Bankruptcy of the United States , I still put forth my statement from the prior post:The trail starts here, now go and follow the money ... where is the evidence that those loans ever repaid?I suspect the bankruptcy precedes 1933.Please send this note to the party whose information you sent to me that appears below.LarryThank you Bear and LarryShalom,inpursuitoftruth[i] Gustav Cassell, The Downfall of the Gold Standard (New York: Augustus Kelley, 1966 ), pp. 11819. as cited in http://jimbovard.com/blog/2006/12/06/the-great-gold-robbery/[ii] http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/britain/paris.htm[iii] http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/france/fr-1782.htm
- Yes, it was intentional and deliberate.
I wanted to make an emphasis on the ancient fact that the word CONSTITUTION is also synonym for NOVATION.
NOVATION, civil law. 1. Novation is a substitution of a new for an old debt. The old debt is extinguished by the new one con- tracted in its stead; a novation may be made in three different ways, which form three distinct kinds of novations.
p.s. There are 6 sub definitions you may want to go to the website and verify it for yourself.
paradoxmagnus <paradoxmagnus@...> wrote:Isn't it FUNNY that the author TOTALLY IGNORED the other DEFINITION
of "constitution" LISTED in the 1856 Edition of BOUVIER'S LAW
- Paradoxmagnus pointed out:
>I think a lot of the confusion about which jurisdiction applies, which
> Isn't it FUNNY that the author TOTALLY IGNORED the other DEFINITION
> of "constitution" LISTED in the 1856 Edition of BOUVIER'S LAW
> CONSTITUTION,, government. The fundamental law of the state,
> containing the principles upon which the government is founded, and
> regulating the divisions of the sovereign powers, directing to what
> persons each of these powers is to be confided, and the, manner it is
> to be exercised as, the Constitution of the United States. See Story
> on the Constitution; Rawle on the Const.
> 2. The words constitution and government (q. v.) are sometimes
> employed to express the same idea, the manner in which sovereignty is
> exercised in each state. Constitution is also the name of the
> instrument containing the fundamental laws of the state.
> 3. By constitution, the civilians, and, from them, the common law
> writers, mean some particular law; as the constitutions of the
> emperors contained in the Code.
> Patrick in California
meaning of the word "constitution" anyone is using at any time,
personally, in relation to themselves, could be removed by asking the
question, "Is there monetized debt and a contract involved?"
If the answer is "no" then one may safely assume that "constitution"
means government and common law. Debt diminishes if not totally removes
sovereignty. If the answer is "yes" then it is OBVIOUS, or should be,
that rights were waived over a signature in anticipation of future
profits and gains from a maritime venture in the equitable jurisdiction.
Then the "contract" definition is appropriate.
Despite propaganda to the contrary, "we" humans are NOT all equal under
law because we have the FREEDOM to ALTER our own legal status. We can
choose the rules under which we will proceed with our fellows around us
by taking actions and speaking words appropriate to one or the other.
Most people can be tricked into verbally claiming a status not their
own. If that happens, because of pride or whatever reason they use to
justify the lie, they should bear the consequences.
It seems to be in nobody's economic interest to have an
informed populace, so a general dumbing-down has been taking place at
least since the 1970s. People are not educated to even the basics of
law anymore. On many lists I still see people expecting a guaranteed
jury trial for any issue involving over $20.
They fail to notice it refers to "common law" cases, and the dollars
mentioned are the ones defined by the still-unrepealed Monetary Law of
1792, not the things that people "call" dollars while at the same time
their maker denies ever intending them to either be or substitute for
And now we have the recent case explaining more of the obvious, that
congress, wittingly or unwittingly, has created two co-existing but
separate monetary systems.
A "Fifty-dollar" gold minted coin is ONLY $50, not the inflated number
announced in London every day that most are aware deal with imaginary
fiat "dollars" (USD). People had been being taxed as though the fake
dollars were real dollars. They case only fixed things for those smart
enough to know and care. Most people still allow the confusion to their
detriment to continue, most likely out of personal laziness. But anyone
can start dealing in gold and silver as I have for decades while
avoiding the equity jurisdiction. I didn't need a court case to tell me
what history already told me. Government employees trying to lengthen
their session at the public feeding trough needed that as a stalling
There's no "we" or "us" anymore folks. There's you and me, and others.
The odds on any sharing common understandings that could be used to
define a "nation" are slim, what with most having their minds dominated
by lie heaped upon lie heaped upon lie.
- Jim Traficant personally told me he did not put that into the Congressional Record.
Yours For Freedom,
Bear - I will respond to this forum as I do not have Mr. Becraft's email address, and I suspect that he is a very busy man. I want to declare immediately that I appreciate Mr. Becraft's work and have been the beneficiary in understanding some legal issues based upon his work.
- His actual comments are here:
http://www.rogershermansociety.org/bankruptcy.htm The page also offers a
download PDF copy of the relevant page of the Congressional Record.
And by the way, how is Mr. Traficant these days? Tell him he has earned my
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cactus Charlie" <cactus85701@...>
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 6:25 PM
Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Traficant's "bankruptcy" Is A Lie
> Jim Traficant personally told me he did not put that into the