Back to the Federal Reserve

Part Ten of the British System

But, how about the Federal Reserve itself? Does not his repeal allow them to, once again, demand payment in gold for the interest on public debt -- pursuant to the terms of the Federal Reserve Act? Remember, this act contains a provision made with respect to an obligation purporting to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold -- and that provision appears to be back in effect. If this be so, what can we expect to happen when the bankers present their demands -- knowing that there won't be enough gold to meet them and no hope of acquiring enough gold?

Any good banker knows that, in this situation, it is foreclosure time -- it is time for distribution of the pool to the last survivors. These facts paint a picture so complex that it is almost beyond comprehension, so a summary of the most salient facts is appropriate at this time. The same people that said give us the Federal Reserve Charter and we will see that there is stability to our economy forced us into a recession in 1921, by a contraction of the Federal Reserve requirements of the fractional reserve to the various banks. This contracted the money supply by increasing the reserve requirement from 15% to 20%. They forced a huge liquidity squeeze in 1929, which brought on the depression.

This precipitated our inability to pay off interest on the debt to the Federal Reserve -- so in 1933 Congress entered the United States into bankruptcy, by the suspension of the payment of debt in gold mandated by HJR-192 in 1933. This one act terminated national Federal Common Law.

This one act breached the flood gates which held the maritime law at the tidelands (with the ebb and flow of the tide) and permitted Maritime Admiralty Law and its jurisdiction to sweep over the American people -- because we substituted the payment of debt in lawful gold with discharge of debt under limited liability in maritime. What we have in lieu of lawful money is federal reserve notes of an insurance underwriting scheme that is a tontine -- just like the George Rapp Society was a tontine and just like the early tontine insurance programs.

Now, you may say to us at this point, how is it that a communistic, religious society that's operated for economic profit, and insurance companies, and the Federal Reserve -- how do these totally interlock? In all three cases there was a pool of assets involved. In all three cases, limited liability was involved, which is insurance. In all three cases, there was a policy of survivors take all -- that is a wagering policy.

In the George Rapp Society, people and property were pledged to the pool. In a tontine, premium payments were pledged to the pool. In the Federal Reserve, premium payments, people and property are pledged to the pool.

In all three cases, there was no accountability to the members or subscribers. In all three cases, there was forfeiture for withdrawal. In the George Rapp Society it was labor interest and intransmissability of property to heirs. In tontine it was the premiums and the interest thereon. In the Federal Reserve, it is Social Security, Unemployment Premiums, property Tax, etc. For example, what happens if you withdraw from social security, or from unemployment insurance, or stop paying property taxes -- is not a forfeiture demanded?

In the George Rapp Society, List's "National Economy" was practiced on a small scale -- in the Federal Reserve, List's "National Economy" is regulating and controlling our economy.

In the George Rapp Society, there was no risk to the insurer, George Rapp and his associates. In the Federal Reserve, there is no risk to the Maritime lender, or insurance underwriter.

In the George Rapp Society, labor was pledged, and labor was the premium for the privilege of remaining in the society for the chance of "making a profit". -- In the Federal Reserve, labor is pledged to obtain the units of credit (Federal Reserve Scrip) to pay the interest to the maritime lender, or the maritime insurance underwriter (one and the same under maritime law).

In the George Rapp Society, George Rapp had no vested interest in the lives of the society members. In the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve has no vested interest in the lives of the United States, or its citizens, nor does it have any risk at stake in the maritime venture of the Public National Credit System. In the tontine, the premium was never to be repaid in the original tontine scheme; in the Federal Reserve, no provision is made to ever pay the principle of the loan from the Federal Reserve, in the Federal Reserve Act -- which is the contract between the United States and the Federal Reserve System.

I am sure that some of you in this audience has performed service in the Navy. Imagine yourself as a seaman aboard a ship, in this case the ship is the credit commune in a joint maritime venture for profit -- beholding to the class A Stockholders, the owners of the ship, the Federal Reserve. The Captain of the ship, for arguments sake, let's say is the Secretary of the Treasury.

Now let's look at Common Law versus Maritime: First of all, under the Common Law, the rights of privacy are respected. Aboard the ship, on the credit voyage, in the credit commune, there is no privacy. The Captain has the right at any time to invade your privacy. Under Common Law, we always deal in substance -- by substance we mean with gold and silver, and we are dealing with real goods and services.

Under Maritime Law, in the credit commune, we are dealing with bills, notes, cheques, and credit -- and of course now credit cards and fictitious documents known as stocks and bonds and so on down the line.

Under Common Law, we protect the right of the family -- understand that this Common Law comes from the early law of the tribes of Israel and from the laws and teachings of Jesus and the Bible. In fact the Common Law and the Bible are totally compatible. But, in and aboard the ship of the credit commune there is no marriage, there is no family unit -- oh yes, we know the Captain performs marriages aboard ship for people travelling aboard ship -- but for all practical purposes there is no family unit. You are a member of the commune, and you have to obey the orders of that commune. In fact, you, under Common Law, have personal rights and property rights. But, there are no personal or property rights in the commune --

Oh you're allowed to keep toilet articles and everything else. But if you have anything that they think is a danger to the voyage, like if you have a wooden foot-locker and they feel that the wood might burn and might be a danger to the ship, they could make you throw the foot locker overboard. Or, if you had some property in one of the holds of the ship and that presented some danger to the rest of the ship because of damage in that hold, or fire in that hold -- they could shut that hold off -- and all your goods would be destroyed. Under Common Law, your rights and property are considered and protected.

Now, in Common Law, we are totally responsible for our actions -- but under Maritime Law there is limited liability for payment of debts. And, if we just look at that a little bit further, we find how, now, we have a situation where even our criminal law has been corrupted by Maritime Law and we find people who have murdered and raped innocent people; eight, ten, twelve years later they are released from prison to become a probable danger to society again. A person who has murdered a supervisor and mayor of San Francisco is also out of jail in 7 years, because of limited liability for payment of debt. People can pull the trigger and wound the President and say I was insane at the moment that I did that -- and other than having to go to a mental institution, served no time at all in jail.

Under Common Law, these people would probably have been executed. John Booth didn't even get a trial when he shot President Lincoln. Under the Common Law, we have the right to refuse an order, as a free sovereign. Aboard the ship, the Captain can make every seaman perform, and do his duty -- as the Captain sees fit.

Under Common Law, the jury not only determines the admissibility of evidence and judges the facts, but its first and foremost duty is to judge the justice of the law as it applies to the particular case. It is this feature of a Common Law jury that caused our founding fathers to refer to the Common Law jury as the "palladium (i.e. the very foundation or cornerstone)" of liberty.

Aboard the ship, the chancellor does not even have to have a jury -- but if he chooses to have one, it is merely advisory -- and those jurors must consider only the evidence permitted by the chancellor; and they must take the law as the chancellor dictates it to them.

The history of due process is essentially the history of the Common Law jury. The right of a Common Law jury to say no, or jury nullification, was clearly established in England in 1670 when the jury refused to convict William Penn on charges of preaching before an unlawful assembly. For refusing to convict, as instructed from the bench, the jurors were fined 40 marks each and sentenced to imprisonment till paid. Upon a Habeas Corpus petition release from prison, the jurors were vindicated by a decision concurred in by all the judges in England, except one, abolishing the practice of punishing juries for their verdicts.

In the period immediately before the Revolution, jury nullification had become an integral part of the American judicial system and there is agreement among many commentators that the right of the jury to decide questions of law and fact prevailed in this country until the middle 1800's. By the end of the century, however, the power of the jury had been thoroughly decimated by a jealous judiciary.

The specific demise can be traced to four highly influential cases, three of which were exclusively within the Admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal courts. Being Admiralty cases, limitation of the powers of those particular juries was perfectly proper. The problem is, not understanding and distinguishing jurisdictional bounds, we have allowed admiralty case law to be imposed in the totally different, and inapplicable, jurisdiction of Common Law.

Under the Common Law, there is no such thing as a victimless crime, and a victim receives redress and compensation for damages -- Aboard the ship, the Captain can make any act a crime, and he can impose his sanctions accordingly. His concern is for the safety of the voyage, and he has little time or inclination to see that the victim of a real crime, under the Common Law, receives compensation from the perpetrator of that crime.

Under the Common Law, there is very little need for jails; whereas aboard the ship, particularly when there is discontent among the crew regarding certain policies of the Captain, there is a continual need to contract more brigs -- enlarge the penal enforcement staff.

Remember what Justice Story said in the DeLovio case about appeals and Writs of Error? Writs of Error are Common Law writs. Appeal is Equity and Admiralty, in civil matters, and Admiralty alone in criminal matters because equity courts do not have criminal jurisdiction. These are some simple tests you can use to determine in which jurisdiction a particular court is operating, in any particular case.

So you see, because of the early customs and traditions of the perils of the sea, a very harsh group of laws grew up. Because of the danger of shipping substantive money, gold and silver, from pirates and storms they started transporting bills, notes and credits -- and this grew up into the evil practice of issuing bills, notes and credits when they didn't have the substance to back them up. And this is the basis for our inflation that is defrauding the American public today. Under the Common Law, all these things would not be possible -- under Maritime Law they are.

When we entered the credit commune and began forfeiting payment of debt and substituted a mere discharge of an obligation in its place, we lost access to our Common Law rights and were handed a pottage of privileges; and in fact, we transferred ourselves from free allodial title to that of sub-tenents, villains, working the land subject to the Captain of the ship. Yet, people still think that they own land -- Yet, we still think that we have rights -- and we go into traffic court not knowing we are under Maritime Law. This is why we don't get a jury trial for infractions anymore.

This is why the jury is merely advisory in every court in this land -- and must take the law as the judge gives it to them, and see and hear only the evidence allowed by the chancellor. Not knowing this, we have taken, time and time again, Common Law issues into courts of admiralty and wondered why our substantive constitutional rights were not upheld and respected by the courts. Being an Admiralty court, it had no jurisdiction to rule on such issues, or grant relief, regardless of how sound your law and facts were at Common Law! cmlaw10.htm