The Informer
Written at 13 year grades level and comprehension of 32
Why are we, still under the war powers of Lincoln? Why is it that they carry out seizure and forfeitures in America without due process of law? Why is it that you have no rights when it comes to IRS confiscation and seizure of property? Why can the IRS seize your property without them ever having to go to court to get a decree to seize bank accounts or levy wages? Why is it that if you attack the IRS in court you never win and they file a Rule 12 (b) (6) on you and the judge dismisses your case? Why is it that in all tax cases they never allow that the defendant to bring in the law; never allowed expert witnesses; and all other facts are 99 percent denied by the judge? Why is it that they deny all motions dealing with jurisdiction, out of hand by the judge? Why is the judge always predisposed in favor of the United States?
When you read 12 Statutes at Large 319, you will have your answer. They have never repealed this statute. The codes in Title 28, and Title 50 that pertain to seizure, have their source as this Statute at Large. I have written extensively on this before but never included the actual Statute at Large. Now here it is and I WILL CAPITALIZE those words that the government is using today to allow the destruction of your freedom. They wrote this Statute during the Civil War but the important words do not pertain to only Civil War. During the Reconstruction Acts the Congress reversed the roles of the people and the government. In other words the people became the slaves of Congress. This is why they never repealed this Statute and allowed Congress to use the statutory words of construction to rule the people with an iron hand. This Statute is the root of all people's problems with seizure today, whether they are drugs, taxes, property condemnation and on and on.
THE ANSWER IS HERE
THIRTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS. Sess. I. Ca. 60, 61. 1861.
Chap. LX.--An Act to confiscate Property used for lnsurrectionary Purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That if, during the present or any future insurrection against the Government of the United States, after the President of the United States shall have declared, by proclamation, THAT THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE OPPOSED, and THE EXECUTION THEREOF OBSTRUCTED, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the power vested in the marshals by law, any person or persons, his, her, or their agent, attorney, or employee, shall purchase or acquire, sell or give, any property of whatsoever kind or description, with intent to use or employ the same, or suffer the same to be used or employed, in aiding, abetting, or promoting such insurrection or RESISTANCE TO THE LAWS, or any person or persons engaged therein; or if any person or persons, being the owner or owners of any such property, shall knowingly use or employ, or consent to the use or employment of the same as aforesaid, ALL SUCH PROPERTY IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE LAWFUL SUBJECT OF PRIZE AND CAPTURE WHEREVER FOUND; AND IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO CAUSE THE SAME TO BE SEIZED, CONFISCATED, AND CONDEMNED.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That such PRIZES AND CAPTURE shall be condemned in the DISTRICT OR CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES having jurisdiction of the amount, or IN ADMIRALTY IN ANY DISTRICT IN WHICH THE SAME MAY BE SEIZED, or into which they may be taken and proceedings FIRST INSTITUTED.
Sec. 3..And be it further enacted, That the Attorney-General, or any district attorney of the United States in which said property may at the time be, may institute the proceedings of condemnation, and in such case they shall be wholly for the benefit of the United States; or any person may file an information with such attorney, in which case the proceedings shall be for the use of such informer and the United States in equal parts.
Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That whenever hereafter, during the present insurrection against the Government of the United States, any person claimed to be held to labor or service under the law of any State, shall be required or permitted by the person to whom such labor or service is claimed to be due, or by the lawful agent of such person, to take up arms against the United States, or shall be required or permitted by the person to whom such labor or service is claimed to be due, or his lawful agent, to work or to be employed in or upon any fort, navy yard, dock, armory, ship, entrenchment, or in any military or naval service whatsoever, against the Government and lawful authority of' the United States, then, and in every such case, the person to whom such labor or service is claimed to be due shall forfeit his claim to such labor, any law of the State or of the United States to the contrary notwithstanding. And whenever thereafter the person claiming such labor or service shall seek to enforce his claim, it shall be a full and sufficient answer to such claim that the person whose service or labor is claimed had been employed in hostile service against the Government of the United States, contrary to the provisions of this act.
Approved, August 6, 1861.
The words, "THAT THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE OPPOSED, and THE EXECUTION THEREOF OBSTRUCTED," are self evident that if you oppose the IRC then you come under this war powers' statute and as an enemy, have no rights. These are facts that anyone cannot dispute as the law is clear on this as are the words, "RESISTANCE TO THE LAWS."
They cannot dispute the fact that under War Powers the President is commander-in- chief and is one of the functions under the Constitution that the President can enforce. He does so under the flag showing the jurisdiction of the commander-in-chief, that being the gold fringe on the flag. This is clear in the words of the Statute, "ALL SUCH PROPERTY IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE LAWFUL SUBJECT OF PRIZE AND CAPTURE WHEREVER FOUND; AND IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO CAUSE THE SAME TO BE SEIZED, CONFISCATED, AND CONDEMNED."
Now when you look at every court in America you will see that the commander-in-chief is exercising his constitutional authority under the war power's acts. He also is exercising admiralty jurisdiction that is the supreme authority under which gives him total authority as showed by these words, "PRIZES AND CAPTURE" shall be condemned in the "DISTRICT OR CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES having jurisdiction of the amount, or IN ADMIRALTY IN ANY DISTRICT IN WHICH THE SAME MAY BE SEIZED, or into which they may be taken and proceedings FIRST INSTITUTED."
They clearly show this in the modern case of ; United States of America, Libelant v $3976.62 In Currency, One 1960 Ford Station Wagon, 37 F.R.D. 564;
Key 31. "Although presumably for purpose of obtaining jurisdiction, action for forfeiture under Internal Revenue Laws is commenced as proceeding in admiralty, after jurisdiction is obtained proceeding takes on the character of civil action at law, and at least at such stage of proceedings, Rules of Civil Procedure control."
"On August 14, 1964 a `libel' of information' (see Supreme Court Admiralty Rule 21; 28 U.S.C. § 1355; 26 U.S.C. 7323) was filed by the United States Attorney." Ibid 565.
You see the use of the words "FIRST INSTITUTED" here. They say they commence it in admiralty, "first made," then proceeds to the civil side. Well admiralty has two sides. The first is the "PRIZE CAPTURE" under War Powers, then it goes to the civil side. Unless you know admiralty, it is too long to go into in this small article, it is sufficing to say that is how they operate today. There are tens of thousands of pages that one must glean from admiralty to understand the significance and how the President operates under admiralty when in the capacity of the commander-in-chief in time of national emergency, sometimes called War Powers. That is why some people say the flag is an admiralty flag. Really it is not. Technically it is the commander-in-chief's flag of authority. Under War Powers, there is no separation of the three branches, they all come under the President. Therefore, today ALL actions come under executive authority and the courts are under executive control, not congressional legislative control. This is exactly as stated by the antifederalists, specifically Patrick Henry and James Wilson when they said the constitution, NOT DRAFTED AND RATIFIED by ordinary people, "squinted toward monarchy." Today people, that is exactly what they said would happen in 1788.
We have a dictator, the President, operating constitutionally under War Powers controlling every aspect of your life. No, they do not suspend the constitution, the constitution exists exactly as they designed it. They have eliminated your rights and you can "constitutionally" do nothing about it. As the declared enemy, you cannot use the President's courts to effect a remedy when you "OPPOSE" and "RESIST the LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES." It is that simple under emergency/war power's acts. Congress is a major player because it was CONGRESS that in 1867 decided to veto President Johnson's veto of the war powers act so they could continue to control the people under the war power's act. Again, note how slyly they incorporated the capitalized words in 12 Stat 319 so they could take care of any future civil disturbance AND if anyone challenged the "LAWS" of Congress, such as the internal revenue laws for example. When you oppose the IRC for being wrong and you are not a taxpayer, or you do not need a license to travel or any other law then that is "RESISTANCE to that LAW." Immediately you have become the "enemy" and then have no rights or as one court case, I think The Sally stated, but there are others, have "no standi in judicio." That means when you take the IRS to court, or any other agency, as the enemy "resisting and opposing the laws," you lose automatically. That is where Rule 12 (b) (6) comes in. You have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Of course because at the "common law" everything was a "claim." Under present law, everything is an action. There is a difference and I suggest you look up those terms as this article does not go into other avenues that branch out from here like an octopus' tentacle.
The answer to why are judges predisposed on the government's side is found in the third paragraph of the 14th amendment and Article VI of the Constitution. Under the President's control and pursuant to Article VI they took an oath to uphold the Constitution, in time of war or peace. Since you are the "enemy" and you are in "RESISTANCE and OPPOSED to the LAWS" that you challenge, they would be "aiding and abetting" the "enemy" if ruling for you. Yes, it is that simple ONCE you understand the rules they are playing under. All the rhetoric of the constitutional protections, Bill of Right Protections is so much "gutter trash" to them, that sometimes they get down right nasty and sanction their own breed, attorneys, when they constantly bring up these "frivolous" arguments. Do you not think that all attorneys should know what rules we are playing under? Could it be that all attorneys play lip service to a constitution to give the illusion that it still exists and that somewhere the magic argument will appear? This way the American people are none the wiser.
With the emergency powers still in effect, this is what President Wilson used to enter WWI, as there was no direct threat to this Nation from Germany, BUT, there was to the Mother country with which we had a treaty. Then in 1932 Roosevelt wanted to declare war on Japan because they would threaten the oil fields in China. Rockefeller owned those oil fields. Roosevelt was told by his cabinet to hold back. Then, Roosevelt used the 12 Stat 319 to begin the "new" emergency powers of March 4, 1933. He then went to Congress on March 9, 1933 and declared that they (him and the federal reserve) declared all the people the enemies of the banking system. It just so happens that Rockefeller owned the Chicago Bank, and if the run was to take place he would lose everything and have to sell part of those oil fields in China and Saudi Arabia to satisfy the depositor's demands. Those depositors would be demanding their property that the banks could no longer return. Such being the case, the federal Reserve System of banks sought the change in the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 to include the American, which, before they did not declare them the enemy. They totally rewrote section 5 (b) to include the American. >From that point on, all so called Wars, yes even the WWII was an action under the President's constitutional authorization of 12 Stat 319 and subsequent powers delegated to him under the Reconstruction Acts starting March 2, 1867.
Now you have the answers to what is and has happened to the American people. Truthfully, it started when President Washington used the first "emergency power’s act" in 1791, so he could, unconstitutionally in peace time, but constitutional in war time because it was "necessary" to install the first private bank in America. He then set up each State as a "district State" so the United States could control through its "district courts" what it could not do under the original constitution in time of peace. They took the physical State and overlaid it with a fictitious "district state." That is why you have U.S. district courts in every State of the Union. James Montgomery has documented this action, and I believe he has it posted on www.atgpress.com in his section immediately below the Informer's section.
To get to the bottom of all your woes today, one must go back in time to see how they accomplished this. This is why I have stated that IF the people, the common everyday people, had really drafted AND ratified their own creation of a contract, do you think they would, or rather put you in their position, drafted such a damaging piece of paper called the "Constitution?" I know I would not have. Especially the emergency powers part where once the President took control, constitutionally mind you, that it would be the engine for total control. Such has been the case since 1791. Patrick Henry and the other anti-federalists saw what was happening and the common average man on the street, just like today, said it could not happen and allowed this to happen out of shear ignorance. Today we have most of the people who have no clue what really took place. They cannot fathom why they rape them repeatedly again and cannot claim their unalienable rights. They cannot understand why the so-called Bill of Rights can no longer be used. They cannot understand why the Constitution that they thought was theirs, is not, and cannot be used in the prize courts of admiralty. Simply stated, "enemies have no rights."
What is fascinating is this passage from Solicitor of Lincoln's War Department, William Whiting's book on War Powers, where he wrote;
"The belligerent right of the government to confiscate enemy's real estates, situated in this country, can hardly admit of question. The title is to no inconsiderable part of real estate in each of the original States of the Union, rests upon the validity of confiscation acts, passed by our ancestors against loyal adherents to the crown. Probably none of these States failed to pass and apply these laws. English and American acts of confiscation were recognized by the laws of both countries, and their operation modified by treaties; their validity was never denied. The only authority which either of the States or colonies ever had for passing such laws was derived from the fact that they were belligerents."
Right here it is evident that the States, created the same way the United States was, by the aristocrats, would consider themselves belligerents against the common man on the street who had no say in the drafting and ratifying of any of the constitutions of any of the States. The common man had no money to speak of nor any large amount of real property to be able to become a member of the contract called the State. In all the States you had to have at least 500 pounds sterling or a land mass equivalent to that amount before becoming an elector or even thinking of running for office. This is but another small proof that you and me, the common man of that era, was considered as nothing. Just like we look at street bums of today, they looked at the common man. No dear people, we were never considered part of their posterity and never drafted nor ratified any constitution. The statement the constitution was "divinely inspired" is so far from the truth that it should be stated that it was the "works of the devil."
I am only reporting my research. I am offering no remedy whatsoever. To offer a remedy would only invoke the wrath of people whose reading of this would only be gut reaction and no solid evidence to substantiate their stance that the facts speak for themselves.
Sincerely ,
The Informer