|T O P I C R E V I E W
||Posted - 02 Nov 2001 : 17:41:13
The Great American Banking and Derivatives Scam
This is a compiled Five Part Series including the following articles:
The Depository Trust Company (DTC)
You don't own your Stocks or Bonds (CEDE & CO.)
Financial Fraud & Money Laundering on Wall Street
Banking Corruption In Government
Wall Street thievery
Click the blue floppy disk icon at the top to view/print/download this entire report in Adobe PDF format.
|17 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)
||Posted - 30 Aug 2010 : 17:43:34
Very good revelation on what has been and is
happening on a positive note.
The following is a good interview. I suggest
it is listened to via the following:
||Posted - 18 Sep 2009 : 17:31:11
Yes Bondservant, and very revealing too, for such
is the nature of what the falsifiers are known
Don't forget to listen to this audio from which site
the graphic came from:
||Posted - 18 Sep 2009 : 15:19:45
Way toooooo funny a graphic, Manny
||Posted - 18 Sep 2009 : 12:05:09
Again, a great audio interview:
PS Listen closely and don't fall to the controlled mainstream press
||Posted - 02 Sep 2009 : 12:54:15
The 19th-Century Bernanke: Featured on Mises.org
My article The 19th-Century Bernanke (originally posted here: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/lilburne/archive/2009/08/08/235270.aspx) is featured today on the Ludwig von Mises Institute web site. Here are the links for...
MP3 audio file(read by Floy Lilley):
I hope you will enjoy reading or listening to it.
Here's an excerpt
"Like Ben Bernanke today, Nicholas Biddle cultivated the veneer of a benign civil servant calculating serenely far above the political fray. In reality he, like Bernanke, was up to his neck in the backroom game of power.
When Biddle's bureaucratic cradle was rocked, he quickly morphed into a Machiavellian monster. Keep that in mind as Ben Bernanke gets progressively cornered by Ron Paul and the bourgeoning anti-Fed movement.
When you hear about the Federal Reserve Transparency Act getting stalled in committee, think of Daniel Webster, bought and paid for with central bank money. When you read Fed apologia in the New York Times, The Economist, and the Wall Street Journal denouncing the "reckless populism" of the Act, think of the newspaper editors in Biddle's pocket."
||Posted - 19 Aug 2009 : 12:58:27
The Crash Course
The Crash Course seeks to provide you with a baseline understanding of the economy so that you can better appreciate the risks that we all face. The Intro below is separated from the rest of the sections because you'll only need to see it once...it tells you about how the Crash Course came to be:
||Posted - 13 Nov 2005 : 00:12:17
Is there a text transcript of the WMA mentioned above available? The first ten minutes at least?
||Posted - 11 Nov 2005 : 18:32:50
>Here is something that you might want to download and listen to. The first ten minutes has some >very interesting information on foreclosure and Banks rights (or lack thereof). The download is >only good for a few days, so act fast. And, please let me know what you think.
||Posted - 05 Sep 2005 : 00:00:35
Good eye opener Loy Robert.
David, as for Greenspan and his spawn of liars & thieves:
||Posted - 04 Sep 2005 : 19:50:18
||Posted - 04 Sep 2005 : 17:22:32
The Origin, Rationale, and Effect of the Federal Reserve System
Consider for a moment the ability to create unlimited amounts of money out of thin air. Imagine that an entire nation, or perhaps the entire world, had to get its money from this magic checkbook type currency. Try to envision the power that the owner of this magic checkbook would have. This scenario might seem outlandish; however, in the United States there does exist a private corporation that wields just such a power. This clandestine corporation is known as the Federal Reserve System. Precisely how this absolute monetary power was acquired and what these private owners are doing with it should be of paramount concern to the American people. It has been said that power corrupts; if this is so, does absolute power corrupt absolutely? Precisely how did a private corporation gain control of the monetary system of the United States; further, what motives did the Federal Government and this private corporation have for creating such an institution? These questions can only be answered by researching the history and the effect of the Federal Reserve System; the information written hereunder is the result of just such research.
Most people do not realize that the Federal Reserve System [Fed hereinafter] is a privately owned corporation. The Federal Government neither wholly nor partly owns it, so it is not federal. The alleged money that is produced by this private corporation is not backed by silver or gold, so it has no reserves. The control of this organization is primarily centralized in New York City, so it is not a system in the sense of diffusion of power. The deception of the Fed does not stop with the name; in fact, the Fed has been shrouded in secrecy and dishonesty from its very inception (Griffin 107-108).
In 1907 the banks created a problem known as a “run on the banks.” The currency at that time was backed with gold, and the bankers had an unlawful habit of loaning more money than the banks owned. They did so by taking the depositors’ money and loaning it to other people; by this means, these bankers could collect interest on these unlawful loans. As long as there were not too many people making withdrawals at one time, no one was the wiser. However, since making money without putting forth any investment of their own was a very appealing prospect, the bankers greedily risked not having enough money to cover the depositors’ withdrawals. Eventually, numerous banks were unable to cover the withdrawals, and as the word spread of these bank failures, many people rushed to the banks to withdraw their money, and many banks failed as the result. More importantly, many people lost all of their money, which resulted in a public outcry that the nation’s monetary system be stabilized. Therefore, President Theodore Roosevelt signed into law the bill creating the National Monetary Commission in 1908 (Mullins 18).
The bankers had grown very accustomed to making profit off other peoples’ money, so they needed to influence the upcoming changes in the monetary system and banking reform to insure maximum income. Coincidentally, The Federal Government wanted money to spend without being impeded by the cumbersome revenue restrictions set forth in the Constitution. Therefore, the stage was set to make a deal that would benefit both of the parties (Griffin 168-169).
The master plan to accomplish these mutual goals was set forth on November 22, 1910, in a secret meeting that took place in the clubhouse on Jekyll Island located off the coast of Georgia; this meeting resulted in the conception of the Fed (Vanderlip 25). Senator Nelson Aldridge, head of the National Monetary Commission, sent his private railway car to the New Jersey train station late in the evening. The train was there to pick up Mr. Aldridge and six other men: Abraham Piatt Andrew, Frank Vanderlip, Henry Davidson, Charles Norton, Benjamin Strong, and Paul Warburg. These men collectively represented, directly and indirectly, one fourth of the wealth of the entire world. When things are done in extreme secrecy, deception is often the motive; the surreptitious creation of the Fed was far from the exception (Griffin. Side A).
In 1913 the Federal Reserve Act went into effect. In 1934, Congressman Louis T. McFadden gave an expose of the Fed in a report to the House of Representatives. In doing so, he summed up many of the early atrocities with the Fed. He stated, in part:
Mr. Chairman, we have in this Country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve
Board and the Federal Reserve Banks, hereinafter called the Fed. The Fed has cheated the Government of these United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the Nation's debt. The depredations and iniquities of the Fed have cost enough money to pay the National debt several times over.
Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies, which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory moneylender. In that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man's throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who send money into states to buy votes to control our legislatures; there are those who maintain International propaganda for the purpose of deceiving us into granting of new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime (3)
McFadden, Louis. Congressman McFadden's Report to the House of
Representatives 1934 Expose of the Fed. Internet source. 8 Available at: http://www.uhuh.com/worthy/mcfad.htm - McSpeech
The privately owned and operated Fed is a banking cartel that has controlled the monetary system in the United States since 1913. The Federal Reserve Act was passed; however, it was done under much controversy and debate. Proponents of the Federal Reserve Act felt that America needed a more flexible currency to insure an adequate money supply for governmental, industrial, private, and defensive needs. They argued that the banks had been overrun with those in need of loans; they further argued that the financial needs of individuals, corporations, and government institutions far exceeded the gold reserves available. This imbalance was allegedly causing banks to fail since their expenditures were often exceeding their income in an attempt to keep up with the demand for loans.
Opponents to the Fed claimed that the banks had been making frivolous loans and destroying themselves through greed and dishonesty. Those against the Fed claimed that there would be plenty of gold for the proper upright enterprise of all concerned parties; they believed a central bank would be unconstitutional and would open the door to the same tyrannical banking practices that existed in England at the time of the American Revolution. These opponents of the Fed supposed that the upkeep of the Fed would be the downfall of the American people. After ninety years of the Fed’s control over the monetary system of the United States, one might wonder what the Fed has done for America and what the Fed has done to America. In other words, has the benefit been worth the cost (Maxwell 109-112)?
There are those who view the Fed as the champion of the industrial age and of all the modern conveniences that have come along with it. Few would argue that the vast numbers of industrial giants, colossal defense systems, and massive city complexes could have been funded as quickly with gold reserves as it has been done with the fiat currency of the Fed’s creation. They have adopted the philosophy that anything can be money. If the people believe that a piece of paper is worth one hundred dollars then it is worth one hundred dollars. People have traded and bartered goods and services for thousands of years. A universal medium of exchange that is not grounded in quantity by some shiny metal that is dug up from the ground seems to be a reasonable solution. Under this system, the goods, services, people, and labor stand as collateral for the currency. Thus, there are instant funds available for emergencies such as national defense; generals can now mobilize their armies instantly without waiting for someone to count out the coins to buy the bullets needed. (Fed. Myths 1).
Prisoners often use cigarettes as a medium of exchange; for these inmates cigarettes are money. Proponents of the Fed believe that law-abiding citizens do not need to do without ample currency when even thieves and murderers are able to create their own currency in times of need. These proponents make a strong case, and few can deny that the industrial backbone, military might, and national generosity were all made possible by the passing of the Federal Reserve Act and the Fed’s efforts to regulate the currency. The Fed should, therefore, be granted a reasonable profit for their money managing mastery, in the eyes of many people (Fed Myths 2).
Opponents, on the other hand, have a very different view of the long-term effects that the Feds’ ninety-year rein has had on this country. The United States Constitution states that only gold and silver coin shall be used as lawful money at Article I, Section X; that section further states that only Congress shall have power to coin money, and there is no provision that allows Congress to transfer that privilege to a privately owned corporation (U.S Constitution 15). Therefore, these people see the Fed’s existence and fiat currency as being an unconstitutional institution that produces and collects interest on counterfeit money. Opponents to the Fed believe that there is plenty of gold to go around. Gold has constantly been mined for thousands of years. No one worries about running out of steel, aluminum, copper, or any other metal. It does make one wonder what rationale there is in the assumption that there is just not enough gold to go around. These opponents wonder why the Fed requested that the interest on their loans of fiat money be paid in gold, since gold is supposedly an outdated and worthless medium of exchange (Griffin side B).
The Fed claims that gold is an antiquated and worthless medium of exchange, yet it lists the gold reserves that once belonged to the American People as its own private corporate assets (Federal 1). Further, these opponents have made accusations for years that the international bankers actually encourage war and strife in order to increase the amount of loans and the interest received on those loans (Traficant 2). These people accuse the Fed of being modern day alchemists that turn the lead bullets of war into the gold in their vaults. The Fed has most certainly reaped vast wealth from each and every war fought by the United States during the Feds ninety-year existence. Prior to the Fed, the United States had very few wars in its grand one hundred and thirty seven year history. Coincidently, in the ninety years since the Fed came onto the scene, the United States has seen little except war. Thus, the allegations that the Fed encourages war, from a historical viewpoint, seem somewhat plausible (Griffin side B).
The Fed claims that the money they create is backed by public faith; that is, they claim that the people, goods, services, homes, land, and businesses stand as surety for the currency produced by the Fed. The people have consequently become feudal tenants in their own land, reduced to possession in fee simple of their property with rent due. This rent is paid as a yearly tax on the property they have worked for (Traficant 3).
At the time that Fed was created the gold belonged to the people, the national debt was nearly nonexistent, the property tax was unheard of, and the personal income tax did not exist; on July 16, 2003, the national debt was nearly six trillion, six hundred thirteen billion dollars and was rising at the rate of nearly ten thousand dollars a second. Despite the fact that the Fed holds all of the people, labor, gold, and real estate in the entire country as surety for the national debt, each and every family in the United States, in addition to the payment of annual taxes, would need to pay one hundred five thousand dollars each to neutralize the debt. That is quite a handsome profit on money that is created out of thin air. Therefore, it is easy to understand why many people do not think the Fed is worth its salt (U.S National Debt Clock 1-3).
The financial and political atmosphere at the time of the Fed’s conception inspired the creation of the Fed. The motive behind that creation is still a subject of much controversy. However, the effect of the Fed can be seen as the mountain of personal and national debt that is choking the American economy. The loans that the Fed creates are un-payable by shear nature. Each dollar created by the Fed receives an interest payment for every year that it is in circulation; the only way to acquire the currency for that interest payment is to borrow it from the Fed, which in turn creates more interest due. This cycle may eventually destroy the American economy just as similar monetary systems have consistently destroyed economies throughout history (Mullins 387). To explain in detail the long-term effect that the Fed has had on America is nearly impossible; however, in 1993, Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) summed the situation up while addressing the House when he stated in part:
Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11... Members of Congress are
official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any Bankrupt
entity in world history, the U.S. Government. We are setting forth
hopefully, a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a
coroner's report that will lead to our demise.
It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress in session June 5, 1933 - Joint Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only.
The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International Bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. All United States Offices, Officials, and Departments are now operating within a de facto status in name only under Emergency War Powers. With the Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved, the receivers of the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government for the United States. This new form of government is known as a Democracy, being an established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America. This act was instituted and established by transferring and/or placing the Office of the Secretary of Treasury to that of the International Monetary Fund. Public Law 94-564, page 8, Section H.R. 13955 reads in part: “The U.S. Secretary of Treasury receives no compensation for representing the United States.”(1)
Speaker-Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House: United States Congressional Record. March 17, 1993. Vol. 33, page H-1303. Internet source. 9 Available at: http://www.questionsquestions.net/documents/bankrupt.html.
Hans Christian Anderson wrote a children’s story known as “The Emperor’s New Clothes” that eerily resembles the Fed’s history. The story tells of two swindlers that convinced a king to give them his gold in exchange for the most beautiful clothes imaginable. The swindlers pretended to spin and weave a fine fabric that was allegedly so pure and exquisite that only fools could not see it. The king and his advisors, not wishing to appear foolish, bragged on the beauty of the imaginary clothes even though the clothes were invisible to them. The king wore the new clothes proudly in a parade through his kingdom, and his subjects, in order not to be labeled fools, initially agreed with the beauty of his raiment. The swindlers had made off with the king’s wealth by the time a little boy proclaimed that the king was naked. Despite the ensuing roar of agreement from the crowd, the defiant king held his head up, and he continued to pretend that his clothes were finer than any other. It is all too apparent that swindlers have clothed the American people, the kings of America, with an imaginary currency. The peoples’ gold is long since gone, and the people continue to hold their heads high, convinced that their massive debt is as grand as the wealth that their nation once had. The economy now screams of their nakedness, yet the people proclaim their raiment is a thing of beauty so that they do not appear foolish.
Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Statement of Condition. July 10, 2003. Internet source. 15 Available at: http://www.newyorkfed.org/pihome/statistics/stcond.shtml?expand=9
Federal Reserve Conspiracy Myths. Internet source. 6 Available at: http://www.politicalhobbyist.com/debunked/fedmyth.html
Griffin, G. Edward. The Creature From Jekyll Island. Global I Audio Seminar. Tape 3 © ® 1998 Reality Zone.
Griffin, G. Edward. The Creature From Jekyll Island. California: American Media, 1998.
Maxwell, Newton. The Fed: Inside the Federal Reserve, the Secret Power Center that Controls the American Economy. New York: Times Books, 1983.
McFadden, Louis. Congressman McFadden's Report to the House of
Representatives 1934 Expose of the Fed. Reprinted by permission 1978 Arizona Caucus Club. Internet source. 8 Available at: http://www.uhuh.com/worthy/mcfad.htm - McSpeech
Mullins, Eustace Secrets of the Federal Reserve: The London Connection. New York: Kasper and Horton., 1952.
Traficant, James, Jr. addressing the House. United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303. Internet source. 9 Available at: http://www.questionsquestions.net/documents/bankrupt.html
U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section X.
U.S. National Debt Clock. Internet source. 6 Available at: http://www.toptips.com/debtclock.html
Vanderlip, Frank. Saturday Evening Post. February 9, 1935.
Loy Robert: Bost, III
||Posted - 20 Aug 2005 : 16:06:58
Now I know why on the military there was an ex-pression, "the green weenie strikes again."
"In 1911, prior to Wilson’s taking office as President, House had returned to his home in Texas and completed a book called Philip Dru, Administrator. Ostensibly a novel, it was actually a detailed plan for the future government of the United States, "which would establish Socialism as dreamed by Karl Marx", according to House. This "novel" predicted the enactment of the graduated income tax, excess profits tax, unemployment insurance, social security, and a flexible currency system. In short, it was the blueprint which was later followed by the Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt administrations. It was published "anonymously" by B. W. Huebsch of New York, and widely circulated among government officials, who were left in no doubt as to its authorship. George Sylvester Viereck**, who knew House for years, later wrote an account of the Wilson-House relationship, The Strangest Friendship in History.14 In 1955, Westbrook Pegler, the Hearst columnist from 1932 to 1956, heard of the Philip Dru book and called Viereck to ask if he had a copy. Viereck sent Pegler his copy of the book, and Pegler wrote a column about it, stating:
"One of the institutions outlined in Philip Dru is the Federal Reserve System. The Schiffs, the Warburgs, the Kahns, the Rockefellers and Morgans put their faith in House. The Schiff, Warburg, Rockefeller and Morgan interests were personally represented in the mysterious conference at Jekyll Island. Frankfurter landed on the Harvard law faculty, thanks to a financial contribution to Harvard by Felix Warburg and Paul Warburg, and so we got Alger and Donald Hiss, Lee Pressman, Harry Dexter White and many other protégés of Little Weenie."*
* See House note in "Biographies"
** See Viereck note in "Biographies"
14 George Sylvester Viereck, The Strangest Friendship in History, Woodrow Wilson and Col. House, Liveright, New York, 1932
||Posted - 11 Aug 2005 : 17:41:26
I'm in brother. I'm tired of their Fustercluck too. To see and feel the detriment done to the issue of my loins...
their slanderous and evil ways has gone too far. Even though I don't need the old three stripes up on my sleeve with the crossed-rifles, the spirit-de-corps, is on my heart for His Truth and Grace.
||Posted - 10 Aug 2005 : 23:04:31
Manuel, you surely remember the old thread here (some still preserved in the archives) where I posted the Bill of Particulars info.
Many months ago (Again Manny, I'm sure you remember), I posted on RMN [Rumor Mills Network] a complete thread on the Banksters and their falsified derivatives scheme... before I was banned from RMN when I posted these anti-Bush truths after 3 years of being an RMN "AGENT" (A falsification of itself). While I insisted that ALL of my posts be removed from the archives of RMN a year ago, some relevant posts are still available at:
||Posted - 09 Aug 2005 : 19:56:53
I got to page 22 of the book, and many dorment notices on the past
have awakened to fruition[sp?]. Specially a DEMAND FOR WRITTEN BILL OF PARTICULARS from years ago, now to their default due to their nihil dicit.
I think it is due to time/space/growth, and seeing and hearing other peoples reactions, including my-selfs, during past/now conflicts of deter-mining the many ills sorrounded by the viscious circling the over bearing wagon on our minds.
The BANKSTERS do have control, of every single "groupie" for every single "cause." The dirty hands are toying around with peoples brains via their "pockets" of resistance.
For that truth, indeed, it is "the rich rulers of the world" which will never enter heaven.
||Posted - 09 Aug 2005 : 18:17:06
Thank you Manuel.
I appreciate finding this book. I have never gotten around to reading it.
James Harlan AYERS was Eustace MULLINS cousin. Jim worked with the authors, one of which he called "Doc" to develop this Libel of Review.
From which I developed the current Libel of Review that takes bankruptcy of the States and United States into account. Find the counterclaim midway down the page http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=306&whichpage=3
One creative suitor hybridized ideas from both into a memorandum and incorporated the district courts of the United States v. United States district courts argument.
123 Main Str.
district court for the United States
in the Central District of Utah
JOHN SMITH )
Petitioner/Claimant ) WITHIN THE ADMIRALTY
) Admiralty Case No. ____________
) MEMORANDUM SUPPORTING
) LIBEL OF REVIEW, ANSWER OF
JOHN JONES, and DOES 1-100 ) JOHN SMITH, COMPLAINT OF
) INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
AGENTS FOR INTERNATIONAL ) AND PEONAGE
MONETARY FUND INTERNAL ) IN RE:
REVENUE SERVICE, DISTRICT ) ALL PROPERTY AND RIGHTS
DIRECTOR, SPECIAL PROCEDURES ) TO PROPERTY OF JOHN SMITH,
FUNCTION OFFICER AND THEIR ) HIS ESTATE AND TRUST
PRINCIPAL, GOVERNOR OF )
INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND )
Aka SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY ) Judge: ______________________
John Smith, lawful man, agent )
Real Party in Interest )
1. The district court of the United States is the proper venue and has jurisdiction to hear this libel of review. This is a proceeding in Admiralty.
“In this country, revenue causes had so long been the subject of admiralty cognizance, that congress considered them as CIVIL CAUSES OF ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME JURISDICTION, and to preclude any doubt that might arise, carefully added the clause, ‘including’, etc. This is clear proof that congress considered these words to be used in the sense they bore in this country and not in that which they had in England. The Act gives exclusive admiralty and maritime jurisdiction to the district court. As a court of the law of nations…
THE HUNTRESS, 12 Fed. Case 984 @ 992 & 989, (Case No. 6,914) (D. Me. 1840):
2. As further evidence that the action before the court is in fact an Admiralty action we find in UNITED STATES of AMERICA v $3,976.62 in currency, One 1960 Ford Station Wagon Serial No. OC66W145329,
“Although, presumably for purposes of obtaining jurisdiction, action for forfeiture under Internal Revenue Laws is commenced as Proceeding in Admiralty, after jurisdiction is obtained proceeding takes on character of civil action at law, and at least at such stage of proceedings Rules of Civil Procedures control.
3. The Petitioners refer the court to 1 Benedict, 6th ed, chap 17, pg. 28, which reads in pertinent part: “As no court other than a court of admiralty can enforce maritime liens, no other court can displace, discharge or subordinate them. Neither the state courts nor the United States courts on their common law, equity and bankruptcy sides can divest, transfer to proceeds or adjudicate the maritime liens unless the maritime lienor voluntarily submit themselves to the jurisdiction. [emphasis added]
4. Pursuant to 28 USC 2463 “All property taken or detained under any revenue law of the United States…shall be deemed in the custody of the law and subject only to the orders and decrees of the courts of the United States having jurisdiction thereof.” [emphasis added]
5. As a further indication that the issue before the court is a matter of admiralty, Petitioners refer the court again to “Benedict’s Admiralty,” 7th ed., Vol. 2, Chapter IV, par 51 ftn. 7. “…(i)t is now generally held that government tax claims under 26 USC 6321 ‘upon all property and rights of property whether real or personal’ rank below all other maritime liens…”
6. “A cardinal principle, in which the practice of admiralty courts differs from that of courts of common law, permits the parties to a suit to prosecute and defend upon their rights as such rights exist at the institution of the action; the assignment of a right of action being deemed to vest in the assignee all the privileges and remedies possessed by the assignor. According to the rule of the common law, the injured party alone is permitted to sue for a trespass, the damages being deemed not legally assignable; and if there be an equitable claimant, he may sue only in the name of the injured party. In admiralty, however, the common practice is to have the suit conducted in the names of the real parties IN INTEREST.” 1 R.C.L. 33, pg. 424 (1914); “…and when a statute of the United States so provides, an action for the use or benefit of another shall be brought in the name of the United States.” F.R.Civ.P. 17. The district courts are prohibited from granting venue where the United States has less than “one-half of its capital stock…” of the Respondents/Libelants Principal, the Fund and Bank. 28 USC 1349 The government by becoming a corporator (see 22 USCA 286e) lays down it s sovereignty and takes on that of a private citizen 28 USC 3002 (15) (A-C). It can exercise no power which is not derived from the corporate charter. (see: The Bank of the United States vs. Platners Bank of Georgia, 6 L.Ed. (9Wheat) 244; U.S. vs BURR, 309 U.S. 242). The REAL PARTY IN INTEREST is not the de jure “United States of America” or “State”, but “The Bank” and “The Fund”. (22 USCA 286, et seq.). The acts committed under fraud, force and seizures are many times done under “Letters of Marque and Reprisal”, i.e., “recapture”. (see 31 USCA 5323) Such principles as “Fraud and justice never dwell together”, Wingate’s Maxims 680, and “A right of action cannot rise out of fraud.” Broom’s Maxims 297, 729.
7. “According to international law it has long been established that, although a person who claims to be the owner of a ship is bound by the character fastened upon her by the flag, under which he has chosen to let her pass, captors are not affected by the flag, but are entitled to go behind it, and to show the true character of the ship by reference to the substantial interest in it, the effective control over it, and the real proprietorship of it.” Prize Law During the World War , James Wilford Garner, MacMillian Co., (1927) sec 284, pgs 378, 379, quote of Sir Samuel in the Kankakee, Hoching and Genesee, British Prize Court 1918. (see Benedict, 6th ed., sec 400, pgs. 92 & 93. 254 U.S. 671 @ P. 689, Admiralty Rules of Practice – Claim-How Verified-Rule 25.
8. This court lacks jurisdiction over the Petitioners who are appearing specially and not generally. Although in most courts special appearance has been abolished and in this instant case since the issue before the court is admiralty, the Petitioners point out: “While the modern version of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (h) (1) has abolished the distinction between general and special appearances for virtually all suits brought under those rules, the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims has been preserved two forms of restricted appearance…Rule E(5)(a) …Rule (E)(8)…The rules was fashioned in order to avoid subjecting an in rem party, John Smith, to the jurisdiction of the court with reference to other claims for which ‘such process is not available or has ont been served…’…” U.S. v. Republic Marine, Inc., 829 F2d. 1399 @ p. 1402.
9. Petitioner draws attention to 2 Benedict, 6th ed., sec 275, pg 119, 120: “But where a party discovers that … he has had no proper notice…and has thereby deprived of property; or where there has been fraud of any kind…so that no regular remedy is left him he may obtain redress by filing a libel of review. The subsequent proceedings will be the same as in any suit and the decree of the court will be such as equity demands. There is no corresponding provision in the Civil Rules.” (emphasis added)
10. The Petitioner/Claimant pray the indulgence of the court in reviewing 26 USC 7323 JUDICIAL ACTION TO ENFORCE FORFEITURE. 7323 (a) reads: Nature and Venue. The proceedings to enforce such forfeitures shall be in the nature of a proceeding in rem in the United States District Court for the district where such seizure is made. (see Petitioners Exhibit D). No action was brought against John Smith in the District Court of the United States.
11. The Petitioner/Claimant again direct the attention of the court to 26 USC 7401 AUTHORIZATION. No civil action for the collection or recovery of taxes, or of any fine, penalty, or forfeiture, shall be commenced unless the Secretary authorizes or sanctions the proceedings and the Attorney General or his delegate directs that the action be commenced. A review of the record maintained by the Attorney General failed to show any authorization.
12. As a matter of public record contained in the GAO audit of 1992/3 the Internal Revenue Service falsifies documents routinely in order to meet its goals. (See pg. 5 of audit results.)
13. Since the statutes themselves declare that seizures and forfeitures are admiralty operations, the property is held by the law and cannot be conveyed unless by court order. A question arises based upon the actions of the Respondents/Libelants. Monies have been seized from the John Smith fiduciaries as noted in the Verified Complaint. Evidently no court of competent jurisdiction has been notified, served or engaged in any fashion or manner. (Again see Petitioners/Claimants Exhibit D) This is a clear violation/failure of due process circumventing the 4th and 5th Articles in Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America (taking without just compensation).
14. Through the testimony of witnesses and evidence at hand and to be discovered, evidence of a systematic scheme or enterprise is visible which are predicated acts under R.I.C.O. statutes 18 USC 1961 et. seq. To wit: three or more parties engaged in an unlawful activity to deprive American citizens of their property without just compensation or due process of law pursuant to 18 USC 2, 3, 4, and 241.
15. Under 26 USC 6902 (a) burden of proof. “…burden of proof shall be upon the secretary to show that the Petitioner is libel as a transferee [or back up withholding agent of tax payer] of property of tax payer, but not show that the tax payer [United States] was libel for the tax. Petitioner/Claimant et. al., is not claiming any rights to tax court implied or otherwise.
16. In the above statement of the court will note that the term United States was inserted after tax payer. The association between the International Monetary Fund and it’s contractual member the United States (for definition see 28 USC 3002 (15) (A,B,C)) present a fortiori which demands an examination of the contractual arrangement/agreement that in any way hold the Petitioner/ Claimant responsible as co-signors to such instrument. This simply precludes the cavalier use of the term tax payer and demands a narrow interpretation of same. The term tax payer for the purposes of this document are not those associated with the common English language. Very simply put, the term tax payer does not apply to John Smith in this instant action but refers to the United States in it’s corporate capacity in all instances.
17. No indication of any bond or surety has been made by the international Monetary Fund or it’s agents. As a matter of fact, no action has been filed before any court of competent jurisdiction. (see Exhibit D) The Attorney General (AG) for the United States as indicated in the documents before this court is unaware of any action civil, criminal or otherwise pending pursuant to 26 USC 7401. (see Exhibit E) A possibility exists that property may be concealed, converted or destroyed to preclude the intervention of this Honorable Court. In such instances the prohibition contained in 26 USC 7421 do not apply. It was not the intention of Congress to circumvent the safe guards contained in the 4th and 5th Amendments of the Constitution for the United States of America and therefore, enacted 5 USC 706 for the purposes of review of administrative agencies. Pursuant to the United States Attorney’s Manual (USAM) 6-5.330 INJUNCTION ACTIONS: Section 7421(a), provides, generally that no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment of any tax shall be maintained by any person in any court, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed. In light of 26 USC 7421, injunctive relief may be had only upon satisfaction of the twofold test laid down in Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co., 370 U.S. 1 (1962).
18. It is interesting to note that the term BY ANY PERSON IN ANY COURT is used in the above cite. The law is dis-positive in directing that, “ALL PROPERTY taken or detained UNDER ANY REVENUE LAW of the United States…shall be deemed in the custody of the law and subject only to the orders and decrees of the court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof.” (emphasis added) Since no court order issuing from a court of competent jurisdiction is evident a question is raised, who receives the property and where did the money go that was in the custody of the law? (see USC 2463. Did the governor of the International Monetary Fund or any of his agents post a bond (28 USC 2464) in order to protect the interest of the United States of America? Is it reasonable to assume that this court is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act 26 USC 7421 in protecting the property that is placed in it’s custody by the agents of the International Monetary Fund pursuant to the revenue laws of the corporate United States?
19. Upon review of the Unification Act of 1964 and interesting comment was made which bares light on this instant case. This following is not a direct quotation but is simply paraphrased: Most attorneys and for that matter most courts are singularly lacking expertise in Admiralty/Maritime Law. Judicial Canon #1 is extremely important. Due diligence and a complete review of the merits of the case are necessary in the interest of justice. These pro se litigants are not knowledgeable in the law and rely upon the discretion of the court to apply justice fairly and evenly pursuant to 28 USC 471, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – Rule 81 and rights and safe guards paid for in the highest premium, the blood of patriots, for the people of the United States of America and their posterity.
By: __________________________ _______
John Smith, agent, Real Party in Interest date
I, John Smith, upon my own unlimited commercial liability, do say that I have read the above Memorandum and do know the contents to be true, correct, and complete, and not misleading, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
John Smith, lawful man date
I, ______________________________ , a notary public residing in ________________ county, ________________ state, do say that on the date of ______________ , 2004, a man known to me as John Smith did appear before me in his true character and did affix his signature to the above document.
||Posted - 09 Aug 2005 : 16:53:20
On this web-site: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm there is
plenty of research on the fraudulent FEDERAL RESERVE and its
conspiratorial thieves, liars and murderers, or if you wish, you can
download in ZIP FILE below and save for your library.
SECRETS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE
Download in ZIP File
Download Word Document