FW: ft is Putting his Money Where his Racist Mouth Is
- -----Original Message-----
From: jd.consultants@... [mailto:jd.consultants@...]
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 03:13 AM
To: taucher@...; LEGS@...; cornforthseminar@...
Subject: RE: [JAIL-SoundOff] ft is Putting his Money Where his Racist Mouth IsOf some relevant interest? While reading the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of the House, dated June 13, 1967, on page 15641 I see, in the third column begins a discussion (through page 15646) where it explicitly states:THE 14TH AMENDMENT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.The purported 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution is and should be held to be ineffective, invalid, null, void and unconstitutional for the following reasons:1. The Joint Resolution proposing said Amendment was not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress. Article I Section 3 and Article V of the U.S. 'Constitution'2. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval. Article I Section 7.3. The proposed 14th Amendment was rejected by more than one-fourth of all the States then in the Union, and it was never ratified by thre-fourths of al the States in the Union. Article V....pg 15644 (first column) No one can contend that the Reconstruction Acts were ever upheld as being valid and constitutional.(second column) ...Congress passed an emergency Act (Act March 27, 1868. 15 Stat. at L. 44)(which) placed the Reconstruction Acts beyond judicial recourse and avoided test of constitutionality....pg 15645 (first column- top) Those Reconstruction Acts of Congress and all acts and things unlawfully done thereunder were in violation of Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution which required the United States to guarantee every State in the Union a republican form of government. They violated Article I Section 3 and Article V...(below) From all of the above documented historic facts, it is inescapable that the 14th Amendment never was validly adopted as an article of the Constitution, that it has no legal effect, and it should be declared by the Courts to be unconstitutional, and therefore null, void, and of no effect.THE CONSTITUTION STRIKES THE 14th AMENDMENT WITH NULLITY...... pg 15646, (center column) The Constitution make it the sworn duty of the judges to uphold the Constitution which strikes with nullity the 14th Amendment..."The framers of the constitution contemplated the instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.""Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government?""If such be the real state of things, that is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime."...Only an aroused public sentiment in favor of preserving the Constitution and our institutions and freedoms under constitutional government, and the future security of our country, will break the political barrier which now prevents judicial consideration of the unconstitutionality of the 14th amendment.Look it up!God bless Americans,
My 2-Step Philosophy:
1. Always Pursue Truth - Unless Something Better comes along.
2. There is No Deception so great as -- Self-Deception
Question your deep convictions -- see # 1.taucher@...>Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 02:18:33 -0500Subject: [thestateofwashington] RE: [JAIL-SoundOff] ft is Putting his Money Where his Racist Mouth IsMessage-ID: <KOELIALHBCJABCFGEAMIIEHAFEAA.taucher@...>hi mark r. "financial conflict of interest" ferrit bsEE "prevaricator" scl JD "the destroyer" etc. mcli have never been accused of having a "racist mouth", as you put it, by anyoneyour answer thus follows it normal pattern in that it obfuscatesyou and your attorney brethren are unable to deny that you, and they, do not seek to rape the People of this country and to enslave the People and persons of the United Statesthis is what it means when, in the 14th amendment, someone is made "subject to" someone else's jurisdictionthe jurisdiction folks have been made "subject to" is the "swarms" jefferson himself specifiedi don't want my kids being "subject to" the jurisdictions of rumsfeld, kissinger, sharon, graham, gore or any other such "swarms"is that so hard to understandyou apparently do want your kids subjected to such arbitrary rule of lawgood for youbut don't choose for meyour system is not of the His, but is one in which some are favored over othersthis is what you seek for your kidsyou are unable to state that you do not have a financial conflict of interest in this matter for the simple reason of the unjust enrichment you might gain as an attorneytherefore, for the umteenth time, kindly show that all of which you say is not due to your desire to protect vested financial interests (primarily yours) as an attorney/lawyer/bar member/svengali/etcbetter yet, show us your license to practice law, mark r. "financial conflict of interest" ferrit bsEE "prevaricator" scl JD "the destroyer" etc. mcl so that we might know that you're not the goofy huckster you appear to beso that there might be no doubt, i don't think you have a license to practice law, mark r. "financial conflict of interest" ferrit bsEE "prevaricator" scl JD "the destroyer" etc. mclin fact, i think you're nothing but an airball and a fraudc'mon, mark r. ferrat bsEE scl JD "the destroyer" etc. mclbring it onshow all that you're other than a fraudgo down to kinko's and scan your license to practice lawpost your license to practice law and make me look silly for having even raised the issuepost 'em, you fraudpost 'em or admit that you're engaged in a scheme to subject God's People into subjects of the Congress via the 14th amendmentc'mon, mark r. "financial conflict of interest" ferrit bsEE "prevaricator" scl JD "the destroyer" etc. mclpost that license for all to see, or admit your treasonpost that license for all to see, or admit that the bar in each state is as fraudulent as you arei personally don't think you've any conception about where to go, you're so involved in your pretend statusanswer the question, mark r. "financial conflict of interest" ferrit bsEE "prevaricator" scl JD "the destroyer" etc. mcland then explain to all why shouldn't i have a claim against you and the death threats you and ed and survivor mike have lodged against me and for all that such hate-speech you've constantly rendered against mec'mon, mark r. "financial conflict of interest" ferrit bsEE "prevaricator" scl JD "the destroyer" etc. mclshow us your bona fidesfinally, i'm posting this thread on the 'neti'm not deleting anything, but am posting it along with the preceding threads for all to see and arrive at their own conclusionsin other words, full disclosure at all sights for all to seeregardsft-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Ferran [mailto:mferran@...]
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 09:19 PM
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Subject: Re: [JAIL-SoundOff] ft is Putting his Money Where his Racist Mouth IsThere are morons who do not understand that not all "lawyers" are "attorneys-at-law." They are irritating.There are morons who do not possess the ability to recognize that LAW CAN BE CHANGED, and that the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND WAS CHANGED by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, rendering views and rules concerning slaves and their descendants articulated prior to 1866 that are inconsistent with those Changes, "archaic" and obsolete. There is no legitimate reason to undue these humane changes to American Law. There are racists who cling to the "glory days" when a Master Race imperfectly ruled this country, in defiance of Jesus' teaching to ignore Race in the administration of the protection of one's neighbor. ("There is neither Greek nor Jew...") Those racists are evil.Mark R. Ferran BSEE scl JD mcl----- Original Message -----Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 9:55 PMSubject: RE: [JAIL-SoundOff] ft is Putting his Money Where his Racist Mouth Ishi mark r. ferran bsEE scl JD "the destroyer" etc. mclthe words are those of the Founding Fathers and supreme court interpretationswhen you lower your only argument to namecalling, you reveal to all that your position is bankruptwhen you call me a "moron", you further demean the Founding Fathers and supreme court justices, for it is their statements, declarations and words upon which i relyfinally, i don't see how you have standing to even discuss the matter since you have a financial conflict of interest as an attorney in seeing the oppression continuedregardsftBTW, how dare you label provisions of the Constitution for the United States of America as an "archaic references"what other portions are "archaic"does that constitution constitute the Law of the Land, or notif you're such an expert and authority of law, how did you not know what the Law of the Land ishave you taken an oath to uphold the constitution, or notif so, upon what authority might you conclude that certain references therein are "archaic"are you going to uphold them, or not, mark r. ferrat bsEE scl JD "the destroyer" etc. mclsince you're quite willing to violate your support of the constitution, and oath (if you've taken one), is there any greater evidence we might rely on as to your factual and fundamental dishonesty-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Ferran [mailto:mferran@...]
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 07:43 PM
To: JAIL-SoundOff@yahoogroups.com; jail4judges; JAIL-Legal-Discussions@yahoogroups.com
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Subject: [JAIL-SoundOff] ft is Putting his Money Where his Racist Mouth IsPeople:There are morons who cannot read and understand the Thirteenth Amendment which abolished Human Slavery in every US state and territory, thereby obviating archaic references to "free" inhabitants therein, since there were no longer any non-free (slave) inhabitants after the 13th Amendment (other than prisoners).There are morons who cannot read and understand the Fourteenth Amendment by which 4 million freed blacks were ADOPTED as full members (Political Children) of "the People" (i.e., as full and equal "citizens of the United States") in 1868. (See, below, "The Pretensions of Racist Paytriots") It is unclear what motivation some of these racist morons have for claiming that because of their (white) ancestry they remain, despite the clearest terms of the Fourteenth Amendment to the contrary, a superior (ruling) caste of American "citizens." If allowed to take Offices within the Government of the States, these vicious Master Race theorists would avowedly "subject" the "inferior" (black) citizens and others (who "lead" them) to oppressions and discriminations on a scale not seen in this country since the 1860s, and seen since then in Hitler's Germany, and in Rwanda. Their ideas are anachronistic, and all of such lawless American racist morons should be relegated to the same fate as their precursors in the defeated Confederate treason movement.People who are not morons nor racists nor Tyrant-wannabes, have a moral obligation to excommunicate (not speak to), or if necessary, to completely DESTROY the capacity of those who threaten to undermine the basic rights and remedies of all Americans, particularly of fellow (e.g., black) citizens.Mr. Frank Taucher makes clear that he would question and turn back the improved (equal) legal status of freed blacks accomplished by the "changes of the civil war" Amendments (13th ,14th). Taucher, and others like, him assert that Black "citizens of the United States" are still not members of the "Posterity" and "One People" who are entitled to all the rights, privileges and immunities of (White) Citizens. Taucher alludes to black people living in America today as "these swarms" and complains that they "harass our people, and eat out their substance." Taucher implies that "there can never be peace, however, so long as they remain...."Jail4Judges forums are not a proper place for Taucher to promote his lawless and racist views. He should not be permitted to use this forum to RECRUIT others into joining his new little Ku Klux Klan/Confederacy. Jail4Judges officers must protect Jail4Judges from being linked to Taucher and his lawless and racist views. I know that the objectives of Jail4Judges does not in any way support or depend upon racist interpretations of the Constitution. But, it is a poor reflection on Jail4Judges that Mr. Taucher still feels free to promote such views in these forums. Mr. Taucher's access to Jail4Judges forums should be immediately terminated.About Mr. Taucher, I previously warned: "Forums that fail to maintain their integrity and which instead allow the diseased persons to repeatedly interject their delusions and deceit into the channels of communication risk alienating their intelligent members, and further risk subjecting their organizations to ridicule and contempt by the general public which tends to reflexively reject outrageous falsehoods and bold pretensions." That time has come.If Taucher's participation in Jail4Judges forums are not terminated, the ADL, NAACP and other radical factional organizations will be notified of the implicit decision of the Jail4Judges leadership. Sadly, such a revelation of an unfortunate decision may well destroy the JAIL4JUDGES effort in the eyes of moderate and civilized people, even beyond the extent that Mr. Taucher's comments published in this forum have not already compromised it.Beyond Jail4Judges, there is a greater public interest to be vindicated. Preserving One Nation composed of One People composed of individuals from all human families, having No Castes among its Citizens.Mr. Frank Taucher was repeatedly warned of the implications of his vile assertions, and his subversive misinterpretations of the US Constitution. Mr. Taucher should now prepare to put his Money where his mouth is, that is, in the gutter of History. He makes a living offering advice to people who trade stocks. He wrote a popular book on the subject. It seems to me that the self-interested people who publish or sell Taucher's books and the consumers who buy them should be informed about the racist and deviant statements and views that Mr. Taucher constantly spews on this and other forums. Let them judge the credibility of Mr. Taucher with ALL available information that Mr. Taucher has provided about himself in this forum. Accordingly, I will provide contact information about Mr. Taucher's business associates, publishers, etc. to anyone interested in writing about their opinions of Mr. Taucher's statements about his fellow (black) citizens and their status under our current Constitution. Or, perhaps I will just take your comments and forward them on to them. I will also contact certain (Black) civil-rights organizations to call upon them to take a position on Mr. Taucher. At the very least, their (black) members have the right to know what Mr. Taucher chooses to do with the free time he earns by the sale of his books. Consumers have a Right to Know.Mark R. Ferran BSEE scl JD mcl----- Original Message -----Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 6:45 PMSubject: [JAIL-SoundOff] free inhabitantsthe below excerpts are from a post of about a week agoif one is unable to understand the fundamental concepts upon which the country was founded, it is difficult to arrive at correct conclusions regarding needed solutions*******************************************************************************Notice that on the 1850 "Population Schedules", the People are "enumerated" as "Free Inhabitants", and on the "enumeration" of 1860 the People are still "Free Inhabitants". However, on the "enumeration" of 1870 and 1880, the People are "enumerated" as "Inhabitants". . . . moving on to 1900, . . . The word "Inhabitant" is no longer used. Instead we see "Twelfth Census of the United States, Schedule No. 1. - Population. The 1910 and 1920 "Census" are the same. Also, we are told the "Enumeration" and "Census" records are "frozen" for 70 years, supposedly to protect our privacy. Therefore, our ancestors had no way of knowing they were (according to the government) no longer "Free Inhabitants".************************************************************************************
Citizens, under our constitution and laws, mean free inhabitants, born within the United States, or naturalized under the law of congress..." Commentaries of American Law, James Kent,, 7th Ed, Vol. II, at 275-78.
"But birth will not confer these advantages upon a negro or an Indian. If so, a man may acquire, by the accident of birth, what the government itself has no right to grant. No negro, or descendant of negroes, is a citizen of the Union, or of any of the States. They are mere 'sojourners in the land,' inmates, allowed usually by tacit consent, sometimes by legislative enactment, certain specific rights. Their status and that of the citizen is not the same. Vattel, book 1, Sec. 213. But the clause of the Constitution in question, applies to citizens, not to sojourners or inmates." State v. Clairborn, 1 Meig's Rep. 331, 335.
"Free negroes and mulattoes are, almost everywhere, considered and treated as a degraded race of people; insomuch so, that, under the constitution and laws of the United States, they can not become citizens of the United States." Amy v. Smith, 1 Litt. Ky. R. 326, 334.
the question is not whether such views are correct or not given the customs and mores of today's persons
it is very simply and clearly, who were the "one People" of the Declaration of Independence and the "People" of the Preamble
where and when did this People consent to the changes of the civil war
or were the changes coerced and forced upon the People at the point of a gun (see the post of a couple of weeks ago regarding the forced military takeover of North Carolina after peace had been declared)
see the post regarding the enabling documents of oklahoma which was not founded by the "one People" of the Declaration of Independence and Preamble, but by "citizens of the United States"
in other words, the most fundamental question is, if we are purportedly a nation governed by the Rule of Law, then is it the de facto law which governs or the De Jure Law of the "one People"
these are not difficult concepts to understand
there can never be peace, however, so long as they remain unanswered and unaddressed, and more and more are discovering the fundamental fraud of the de facto governments
the beneficiaries of the 14th amendment are the same ones jefferson railed against in the declaration of independence when he stated, "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance."
these swarms are led by those persons who benefit the most from the 14th amendment - attorneys, the bar, politicians, and bureaucrats, none of whom produces anything of value other than hot air
ft-----Original Message-----The Pretensions of Racist Paytriots (and of those who say they are not "persons" as that term is used in the 14th Amendment). A collection of recent essays and letters by Mark Ferran.I think I know why RM omitted to provide a link to support his claims, particularly his boasts about "Barbara Martin" and her frivolous case, which was summarily dismissed by the lower Federal Courts, and then denied Certiorari by the Supreme Court without comment.Martin is clearly a Racist Paytriot, who panders to the egos of those vulgar white racists who still think that their white European ancestry alone entitles them to regard themselves as first-class American citizens (The "Chosen Race" /Master Race) while deeming black "citizens" as members of a "Subject" Race. Martin argues that "the African people never set up a government to secure their God given, Unalienable/Inalienable Rights. Therefore, they were prey to every other nation in the world. ... Now, lest anyone accuse my ancestors of being racists or bigots, it was not their responsibility to establish a government to secure the "Blessings of Liberty" for any other race of people, or any other races Posterity. And for the record, I am not a racist or a bigot because I am claiming my heritage. " She pitches the standard Paytriot Myths (e.g., offering exemption from statutes regulating the use of motor-vehicles on public highways), and throws in a Racist Hook: "Motor Vehicle Operator Licenses, ZIP Codes, and other government documents ... are not mandatory to the "Posterity". "Despite Royce's repeated failure to provide a link to support his vague contentions regarding the activities of a "Barbara Martin" who pursued an action in the Federal Courts, I located the website of "Barbara Ann (Norris) Martin" the self-proclaimed "De Jure Citizen"Apparently, Martin is also a member of a "Church" that believes that all "Jews" are "ANTI-CHRIST JEWS" (She/They argue that Jesus was NOT a Jew, and that he hated the Jews).She begins her essay about with the disclaimer that "This article is not about bigotry or hatred." Yet, her essay is a creative mixture of familar Paytriot Mythology that some people are above the Law, mixed with an anachronistic claim of Racial Superiorty of a Master Race over the "Subject Race." She claims that "If you are white, and your ancestors were from Europe, you are probably a De Jure Citizen." She notes that to be sure, you have to research your ancestry, as Royce has done.To put Martin's article into context, it is important to realize that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) was intended and expressly written to abolish the holding of the Supreme Court which held that the descendants of Black Slaves could never be full-citizens of the United States, (but could only obtain mere "state-citizenship" and only at the pleasure of the People of each state.)Martin argues (anachronistically) that "[Black] people could not (and still do not) qualify to be Sovereign/Citizens of the Republic because they were/are not members of the "Posterity" of the "One People" spoken of in the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence." Martin's anachronistic thinking could very well have been lifted right out of the Decision of the Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which she does not mention at all.In Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), the Supreme Court addressed the question, (decided under the Constitution before the Fourteenth Amendment) "Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen? One of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution. ... We think they [people of African ancestry] are not [citizens], and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. . . [T]he legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument." http://www.landmarkcases.org/dredscott/majority.html"[W]hile [Chief Justice] Taney sympathized with Scott's dilemma, he was bound by law to find that Scott had no right to sue, as under the laws of the land he was in fact, not a citizen and did not have the rights afforded to a citizen. ... Taney made it clear that it was up to the legislature to correct the wrong, not the court. The legislature of that time did correct the problem by the proper path. They amended the Constitution to include as citizens, all naturally born or naturalized persons regardless of race. The fourteenth amendment was ratified and became law. ... The Dred Scott situation has been corrected, and rightfully so.""The declaration contained in the [Fourteenth] amendment that citizens of the United
States shall be deemed citizens of the State wherein they reside is
merely a reiteration of the law as it existed before the amendment and
as it had been announced by Chief Justice Marshall in Gassies v.
Ballon(7) where it is said: "A citizen of the United States, residing
in any State of the Union, is a citizen of that State." The declaration
that all persons born in the United States and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States was the
announcement of a new law of Federal citizenship, carrying with it a new
law of State citizenship and altering, as it was intended to alter, the
rule of citizenship established by the decision of the Supreme Court in
the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford.(8) To that extent the amendment
worked a radical change.(9)"The Citizenship Clause of Fourteenth Amendment corrected this iniquity between segments of the population and clearly declared that Every "person" who was "born" within any state or US Territory is deemed to be a member of the Posterity (a member of "the People" who is a "citizen of the United States") for whose benefit the Constitution of 1787's protections were written, and can become a citizen of any US state simply by residing there. www.billstclair.com/ferran
"The [Citizenship Clause of the] Fourteenth Amendment was adopted precisely to abrogate the disadvantages resulting from an inferior caste status imposed by law. Chief Justice Taney, in the historic decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U. S. (19 How.) 393, 407 (1857), had described Negroes as having for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect. The Fourteenth Amendment was particularly intended to repudiate that view, and therefore reached beyond the Thirteenth Amendment (which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude) to elevate the Negro to full citizenship and complete equality before the law. It did not provide for second-class citizenship or prescribe separate but equal treatment; instead, it made the rights and responsibilities, civil and criminal, of the two races exactly the same. Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313, 318 (1880) (emphasis supplied). The contemporaneous decisions of this Court fully reflected this understanding. In Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303 (1880), this Court pointed out that the [Citizenship Clause of the] Fourteenth Amendment was framed and adopted to protect the colored people, who had long been regarded as an inferior and subject race, against State action designed to perpetuate the distinctions that had before existed (at p. 306)." http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/curiae/html/347-483/017.htm"The 14th Amendment controls the definition of citizenship. The Amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the US ... are citizens of the US ...' According this court finds that Updegrave is not a resident of Pennsylvania but a citizen of the US by birth...."US v. Updegrave (ED Penn unpub 5/28/97) 80 AFTR2d 5290, 97 USTC para 50465In Lonsdale v. US (10th Cir 1990) 919 F2d 1440, the Court held that the argument that "freeborn, white, preamble, sovereign, natural, individual common law de jure citizens of a state" are not "persons" is "completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous"; ditto (sued for declaration that he is a "de jure citizen" rather than a "de facto citizen" .. "Plaintiff's pleadings contain rambling, barely coherent discussions of the supposed basis for distinction... The claims are patently meritless.") Itz v. US Tax Court (WD Tex unpub 5/6/87) 87 USTC para 9497, 60 AFTR2d 5113."The myth is that the Fourteenth Amendment created a distinct category of citizen, distinct from native born whites, consisting of non-whites and immigrants--and later women--so that the American population is divided between "preamble citizens" who are citizens of individual states but not necessarily citizens of the US nor subject to federal law, and "14th Amendment citizens" who are covered by federal law and who may not have the inherent rights. This myth is discussed in Koniak, When Law Risks Madness, 8 Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature 65 (1996)."Ms. Martin's basic thesis is that still, even despite the Fourteenth Amendment, "there are two classes of citizens in this country:"
- Preamble Citizen: persons born or naturalized within
the meaning of the Organic Constitution and inhabiting one of the
several Republics of the United States who enjoy full Citizenship of
the Organic Constitut
(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
- Preamble Citizen: persons born or naturalized within the meaning of the Organic Constitution and inhabiting one of the several Republics of the United States who enjoy full Citizenship of the Organic Constitut
- Yes - You can get elected and still have the right to speak nonsense. What you say will be recorded and put into the record. Totally irrelevant. Does not make what is said law.----- Original Message -----Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 11:25 AMSubject: [tips_and_tricks] FW: ft is Putting his Money Where his Racist Mouth Is-----Original Message-----
From: jd.consultants@... [mailto:jd.consultants@...]
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 03:13 AM
To: taucher@...; LEGS@...; cornforthseminar@...
Subject: RE: [JAIL-SoundOff] ft is Putting his Money Where his Racist Mouth IsOf some relevant interest? While reading the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of the House, dated June 13, 1967, on page 15641 I see, in the third column begins a discussion (through page 15646) where it explicitly states: