The Evil Amongst U.S. Part 2. By Patrick Michael
Hello again, welcome to part 2. I had left part 1 with sharing the dissenting opinion of Justice Harlan, he was disagreeing with the legal ideology of the United States Congress having the ability or authority to write legislation outside the principles and limitations of the Federal United States Constitution. Obviously, I see Justice Harlan’s words were a legitimate warning back in 1901 about what was happening, and our current state of oppression, corruption, and suffering leads to the realization his words and fear became our reality. We have no choice now but to acknowledge this perversion. We must look for understanding and find remedy within our law. Downes v. Bidwell was in 1901 and it appears these infiltrators wasted little time continuing their agenda, the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and subsequent “declared” banking "emergency" in 1933 would be my primary pieces of evidence of Congress completely stepping outside the principles and limitations of the Federal Constitution and the acceptance by our judiciary and legal profession of two distinct "national" governments, one under the limitations of the Federal Constitution the other outside of it. I think most are unaware that from 1913 to 1933 United States Notes were circulated as currency alongside the newly created Federal Reserve Notes. Both currencies were underwritten by hard assets and redeemable when presented at a Bank. The problem, federal reserve notes were issued through a private central bank, there was no oversight to protect the people and the integrity of the money/credit being issued. This was the central banking system set up under the 14th amendment created United States Nation outside the limitations of the Constitution. It had the effect of a massive wealth confiscation mechanism. I will share some quotes from Louis T. McFadden and Congressman Patman on the floor on Congress in the 1930's. Again, anyone interested in learning, please research Louis T. McFadden, he had intimate knowledge of our systems of banking and called these individuals what they were, traitors. He was trying to protect the Union and fulfill his duty to his country and fellow man. I believe he paid the ultimate price with his life, like so many others throughout our history, because he would not compromise and stood directly opposed to these sinister plots to enslave and cause injury to the unsuspecting people in the United States of America. Several speeches were made on the Floor of the House of Representatives by the Honorable Louis T. McFadden on Pennsylvania;
"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 has cost enough money to pay the National debt several times over.”
"This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of these United States, has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the defects of the law under which it operates, through the maladministration of that law by the Fed and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.”
"Some people who think that the Federal Reserve Banks 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 money lenders. 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.”
"One of the greatest battles for the preservation of this Republic was fought out here in Jackson's time; when the second Bank of the United States, founded on the same false principles of those which are here exemplified in the Fed was hurled out of existence. After that, in 1837, the Country was warned against the dangers that might ensue if the predatory interests after being cast out should come back in disguise and unite themselves to the Executive and through him acquire control of the Government. That is what the predatory interests did when they came back in the livery of hypocrisy and under false pretenses obtained the passage of the Fed.”
"The danger that the Country was warned against came upon us and is shown in the long train of horrors attendant upon the affairs of the traitorous and dishonest Fed. Look around you when you leave this Chamber and you will see evidences of it in all sides. This is an era of misery and for the conditions that caused that misery, the Fed are fully liable. This is an era of financed crime and in the financing of crime the Fed does not play the part of a disinterested spectator.”
“The people have a valid claim against the… Federal Reserve banks… We ought to find out the exact amount of the people’s claim… and we should collect that amount immediately… and the Federal Reserve banks, having violated their charters, should be liquidated immediately… Unless this is done by us, I predict that the American people, outraged, robbed**, pillaged, insulted, and betrayed as they are in their own land, will rise in their wrath and send a President here who will sweep the money changers out of the temple.”** - Congressional Record, June 10, 1932, House, Congressman McFadden, 72nd Congress, 1st Session, Volume 75, Part 11, pp. 12602, 12603
“The ‘New Deal’ lawyers now have no hesitancy in appearing in court and asserting that private citizens can contract away their constitutional rights”.
“Under the new law [see Public Laws of the 73rd Congress, March 9, 1933] the money is issued to the banks in return for Government obligations, bills of exchange, drafts, notes, trade acceptances, and banker’s acceptances. The money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar, because it is backed by the credit of the Nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes and other property of all the people in the Nation.” - Congressional Record, March 9, 1933, house, Congressman Patman, 73rd Congress, Special Session, 1st, Volume 77, Part 1, p. 83
“I want to show you where the people are being imposed upon by reason of the delegation of this tremendous power. I invite your attention to the fact that section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act provides that whenever the Government of the United States issues and delivers money, Federal Reserve notes, which are based on the credit of the Nation - they represent a mortgage upon your home and my home, and upon all the property of all the people of the Nation - to the Federal Reserve agent, an interest charge shall be collected for the Government….The money collected on interest charges should go into the Treasury. Has that ever been done? No; it has never been done… if the law had been complied with they would owe this Government billions of dollars today.”- Congressional Record March 13, 1933, House, Congressman Patman, 73rd Congress, Special Session, 1st Session, Volume 77, Part 1, p. 292
(I have a document with 23 pages worth of quotes from Congressman McFadden, this is just a small sample of his dedication to exposing these criminals.)
The million-dollar question, which people of which Nation and/or which government are they referring to? There is no legal nor logical explanation that would allow the U.S. Congress to act in this way in relation to state citizens under the Federal Constitution, it would seem to be a direct act of treason, right? So, there must be another explanation, even if we find it difficult to accept. I believe one needs to have a solid understanding of the distinct legal jurisdictions and the “Nations” within our country to comprehend how this legislation was justified. They must be referring to their own distinct Nation with their own distinct citizens of the United States outside the limitations of the Federal Constitution.
These quotes then tie into Senate Resolution Number 62 from April of 1933 which reads;
“The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual ownership is only by virtue of Government, amounting to mere user; and that use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.”
The saying goes, ‘the devil is in the details’. Important to take notice of the language and the particular terms used in the ‘United States’ Senate Resolution 62. Notice it is referring to State in the singular context, it does not say States or Union. It also does not identify which Government is determining “individual ownership”.
These statements bring along multiple questions, such as, how is property ownership now in the State? Ownership by virtue of Government? Necessities of the State? This doesn't sound like our federal government under limited delegated enumerated powers, what happened to private property? The inalienable natural rights of the individual, which would include private property? Sounding like the tenets of a socialist state under the philosophy of Collectivism. It does not look good for the people of the United States of America but alas there is hope when the truth is known. There are no enemies other than our own ignorance at this point, which is why I'm taking the time to write this difficult synopsis about some important historical events and the importance of knowing our history and our fundamental law. It is only those with the power of discernment and truth that are able to cut through deception and fraud. There are many who profit from an ignorant society and they are willing to commit atrocities to propagate their own selfish ambitions and insane delusions.
I will now try to explain what working knowledge I have of International Law. There may be some errors as I am no expert, just trying to explain how it is structured and meant to work. The Law of Nations was first written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758. It was used as a reference when our country was being established in 1776. There are two bodies of international law, a public side and a private side. Private International law didn't come along until the late 1860's, the same timeframe as the Civil war, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the 14th amendment. Public relates to legal entities we call Nations and/or States and their agents, employees, or instrumentalities when carrying out their delegated duties of public political office, such as diplomats. Private relates to legal entities which are in no way involved in a public capacity, not in political office, such as private individuals called natural persons, private citizens, or private entities like partnerships, LLC's, and companies which are involved in private business. Governments operate in both capacities, public and private. You will notice, the obligation to uphold the Law of Nations is part of our U.S. Constitution (Article I, section 8, clause 10) which is why we need to understand International law, our government structure of dual federalism, the effects of the 14th amendment, and the two mechanisms of citizenship. If we do not, we have the obvious possibility of many violations of our fundamental principles, the fear expounded upon by Justice Harlan. It would seem we have allowed the creation of a ‘State’ without any written fundamental law defining its capacities and limitations. This appears to be the work of the infiltrators here amongst us, they have created/used a legal loophole to justify their evil actions of destruction and war mongering right in our backyard and then throughout the world.
I believe there are 3 basic fundamental requirements to have the status of a Nation or State;
1. An organized government
2. Territory over which said government has exclusive jurisdiction (single authority/sovereignty)
3. A political body composed of people, typically described by the term national or citizen.
With this understanding, I think the effect of the 14th amendment is easier to grasp. Under International Law, the United States became its own "Nation", since the additional element of needing a body politic was fulfilled. The federal government already had their own organized government as well as exclusive jurisdiction over their defined territory. I think we can see now; Justice Harlan was telling us about the legal arguments being made to “justify” two national governments. Luckily, we have the additional layer of Private International Law to help sort out this mess.
In the sense of public international law, the several states of the Union are neither foreign to the United States nor are they foreign to each other. But such is not the case in the field of private international law. In only one respect does the federal constitution operate by way of compulsion on the states in that field and that is in requiring each state to give full faith and credit to the public acts**, records and judicial proceedings of every other state. Art. IV. Before the adoption of the constitution, that obligation rested in comity. Where the constitution neither compels nor excludes jurisdiction, one state is free, and under the rule of comity ought, to entertain suits arising under the laws of the United States or of any other state, when its courts deem such laws to be civil and not penal in their nature. **
Robinson v. Norato, 43 A.2d 467 (R.I. 1945) Supreme Court of Rhode Island
In the sense of private international law, the several states of the Union are foreign to each other, but this is not true in the field of public international law. 81 C.J.S. page #896
We also have this invaluable court case which helps to shine some much-needed light on our systems of law.
(656) - In Udny v. Udny, (1869) L.R. 1 H.L. Sc. 441, the point decided was one of inheritance, depending upon the question whether the domicil of the father was in England or in Scotland, he being in either alternative a British subject. Lord Chancellor Hatherley said: "The question of naturalization and of allegiance is distinct from that of domicil." P. 452. Lord Westbury, in the passage relied on by the counsel for the United States, began by saying:
The law of England, and of almost all civilized countries, ascribes to each individual at his birth two distinct legal states or conditions: one, by virtue of which he becomes the subject of some particular country, binding him by the tie of natural allegiance*, and which may be called his* political status*; another by virtue of which he has ascribed to him the character of a* citizen of some particular country*, and as such is* possessed of certain municipal rights, and subject to certain obligations*, which* latter character is the civil status or condition of the individual, and may be quite different from his political status*."*
And then, while maintaining that the civil status is universally governed by the single principle of domicil, *domicilium,*the criterion established by international law for the purpose of determining civil status, and the basis on which "the personal rights of the party, that is to say, the law which determines his majority or minority, his marriage, succession, testacy or intestacy, must depend" he yet distinctly recognized that a man's political status, his country, patria, and his "nationality, that is, natural allegiance," "may depend on different laws in different countries."
Pp. 457, 460. He evidently used the word "citizen" not as equivalent to "subject," but rather to "inhabitant," and had no thought of impeaching the established rule that all persons born under British dominion are natural-born subjects.
[ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)]
Suffice it to say, reading the above court case is what began to open my mind to the bigger picture in hopes of first, understanding our legal systems, and then finding a lawful remedy. Civil status, universally governed by single principle of domicile, established by international law, basis on which personal rights of the party are determined. I see no end of people consistently missing this invaluable knowledge. I will also share a write up from Francis Wharton's Treatise on Private International Law;
“The position in the text is in no wise inconsistent with the recognition of a citizenship in a state in addition to that of a citizenship in the United States. That citizenship in the United States does not involve citizenship in a state, and that citizenship in a state does not involve citizenship in the United State, is plain. Citizens of territories, citizens of the District of Columbia, are not citizens of states, yet they are citizens of the United States. This, in fact is the construction given by the Supreme Court to the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution. “It is quite clear,” said Miller, J., in giving the opinion of the court in the Slaughter-House cases (16 Wall. 36), “that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics and circumstances in the individual.” It is also clear, as will be hereafter seen (infra, § 13), that persons may be made citizens of the United States by other processes than naturalization and birth, specified in the fourteenth amendment; e. g. by annexation of their country. There may also be citizens of a state who are not citizens of the United States. Thus, in Dred Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. 393, Taney, C.J., said: “Previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every state had the undoubted right to confer, on whomever it pleased, the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character was confined, of course, to the boundaries of the state, and gave him no rights or privileges in other states, beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and comity of states. Nor have the several states surrendered the power conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each state may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons.”
This privilege has been repeatedly exercised by statutes of particular states, making non-naturalized foreigners’ citizens of the state adopting the statute. See summary in article by Dr. Spear in 15 Alb. Law Jour. p. 485, and in Van Valkenburgh v. Brown, 43 Cal. 43. The inhabitants, also, of districts within a state ceded to the United States are citizens of the United States, but not of the ceding state. Com v. Clary,8 Mass. 72; Sinks v. Reese, 19Oh. St. 306.
This distinction is affirmed in U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, where Waite, C.J., says: “We have in our political system, a government of the United States, and a government of each of the several states. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a state, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 74.
“Citizens are the members of the political community to which they belong. They are the people who compose the community, and who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights. In the formation of a government the people may confer upon it such powers as they choose. The government when so formed may, and when called upon should, exercise all the powers it has for the protection of the rights of its citizens and the people within its jurisdiction, but it can exercise no other. The duty of a government to afford protection is limited always by the power it possesses for that purpose.”
It should, however, be remembered that there is authority for holding that naturalization, under the federal laws, is the only mode by which foreigners, subjects of a foreign state, may be made citizens of a state, though without naturalization they may be admitted to vote. Thus, in Lanz v. Randall, 4 Dill. 425, the plaintiff was a subject of a foreign state, but had resided in Minnesota, some fifteen years. Under the Constitution of Minnesota the elective franchise is conferred upon white persons of foreign birth who shall have declared their intention to become citizens under the federal naturalization laws. Plaintiff had made such declaration but had never become naturalized, but had voted at several elections. After the commencement of the action in a court of the State of Minnesota he procured its removal to the federal Circuit Court, under the provision of the Act of Congress of March 3, 1875, which authorizes the removal of “a controversy between citizens of a state and foreign states, citizens or subjects.” Upon a motion by defendant, who was a citizen of Minnesota, to remand the case to the state court, the Circuit Court denied the motion, holding that citizenship and the right to vote are neither identical or inseparable, and that the provision in the Constitution of Minnesota mentioned did not make un-naturalized foreigners citizens of the state, although it conferred upon them the right to vote and hold office. The court said that by the provision of the federal Constitution (article 1, § 8), which confers upon Congress the power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization,” it is designed that the rule, when established, shall be the only rule by which a citizen or subject of a foreign government can become a citizen of one of the States of the Union, and thereby owe allegiance to such state. That there is no necessary connection between citizenship and voting, it was said is shown by the circumstance that about five sixths of those who are citizens, such as infants and females, have no right to vote.
But however, this may be, there is no question that there is citizenship in a state as well as a citizenship in the United States, and that the two citizenships are not identical. There is also no question that, so far as concerns our relation to foreign powers, we have but one nationality, - that of the United States. “Although citizens of the United States,” says Judge Cooley (4thed. Story on Const. § 1937), “are commonly citizens of the individual states, this is not invariably the case; and if it were, the privileges which pertain to citizenship under the general government are as different in their nature from those that belong to citizenship in a state as the functions of the one government are different from those of the other. Indeed, it is a consideration of the sphere of the governments respectively which suggests the rights and privileges as citizens of those entitled to their protection. A citizen of the United States, as such, has the right to demand protection against the wrongful action of foreign authorities *; to have the benefit of passports for travel in other countries; *to make use, in common with all others, of the navigable waters of the United States; to participate with others in the benefits of the postal laws, and the like. It would be useless to attempt a general enumeration; but these few may suffice as illustrations, and will suggest others. Such rights and privileges the general government must allow and insure, and such the several states must not abridge or obstruct; but the duty of protection to a citizen of a state in his privileges and immunities as such is not by this clause devolved upon the general government, but remains with the state itself where it naturally and properly belongs.
If a citizen of a state desire a passport or safe-conduct to travel in a foreign state he can only receive it as a citizen of the United States**; ** if he desire consular protection abroad, it can only be as a citizen of the United States; if he seek for a sovereign to redress injuries sustained by him abroad, to the United States he must look. No state can issue extradition process to arrest abroad a person who has committed a crime on one of its subjects; the process must issue from the United States. No state can impose regulations on foreign commerce; internationally, this can only be done by the United States. Nor can the nationality of any particular state be recognized in any way by a foreign sovereign; internationally, our only nationality is that of the United States, our only sovereign its government**. ** And by no one has this position been more unhesitatingly maintained than by Mr. Jefferson, when Genet attempted to appeal to the state governments against the Washington administration. Yet, in municipal matters, Mr. Jefferson took what is now held the highest view of the exclusiveness of state sovereignty.
This is where I am stopping for now. There is a lot going on here that many are completely unaware of, and this excerpt can feel almost like trying to read a foreign language. There are a few layers that need to be understood if one is to navigate this maze. I would advise reading the above excerpt multiple times, look up terms and concepts that you are unfamiliar to you. In the files section on the Internally Displaced facebook page is some really good material. In relation to the citizenship questions I would recommend the Citizenship Diagram by SEDM as a starter. Half the struggle is simply building a solid knowledge base of legal terms and concepts. It’s not fun but necessary, sort of like taking bitter medicine, or eating your vegetables.
There is more to come, stay tuned for part 3.
This is an opinion piece based upon years of persistent research as my time has allowed. If you are aware of any errors I would be grateful for considerate corrections with supporting evidence/documentation. It is not my intent to mislead or spread incorrect information, the integrity of this information is of the utmost priority. If you are aware of information/evidence which you think would help support these claims, I would likewise be appreciative of those willing to share.
Written by Patrick Michael