Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
Ukraine / Mutual Legal Assistance

 ___________________________________

TREATY WITH UKRAINE ON MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS

                               __________

                                MESSAGE

                                  from

                   THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

                              transmitting

TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND UKRAINE ON MUTUAL LEGAL 
 ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS WITH ANNEX, SIGNED AT KIEV ON JULY 22, 
1998, AND WITH AN EXCHANGE OF NOTES SIGNED ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, WHICH 
                PROVIDES FOR ITS PROVISIONAL APPLICATION




 November 10, 1999.--Treaty was read the first time, and together with 
the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 
          and ordered to be printed for the use of the Senate.

                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
79-118                     WASHINGTON : 1999


                         LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                                The White House, November 10, 1999.
To the Senate of the United States:
    With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the 
Senate to ratification, I transmit herewith the Treaty Between 
the United States of America and Ukraine on Mutual Legal 
Assistance in Criminal Matters with Annex, signed at Kiev on 
July 22, 1998. I transmit also, for the information of the 
Senate, an exchange of notes which was signed on September 30, 
1999, which provides for its provisional application, as well 
as the report of the Department of State with respect to the 
Treaty.
    The Treaty is one of a series of modern mutual legal 
assistance treaties being negotiated by the United States in 
order to counter criminal activities more effectively. The 
Treaty should be an effective tool to assist in the prosecution 
of a wide variety of crimes, including drug trafficking 
offenses. The Treaty is self-executing. It provides for a broad 
range of cooperation in criminal matters. Mutual assistance 
available under the Treaty includes: taking of testimony or 
statements of persons; providing documents, records, and 
articles of evidence; serving documents; locating or 
identifying persons; transferring persons in custody for 
testimony or other purposes; executing requests for searches 
and seizures; assisting in proceedings related to restraint, 
confiscation, forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection 
of fines; and any other form of assistance not prohibited by 
the laws of the requested state.
    I recommend that the Senate give early and favorable 
consideration to the Treaty and give its advice and consent to 
ratification.

                                                William J. Clinton.
                          LETTER OF SUBMITTAL

                              ----------                                
        

                                       Department of State,
                                      Washington, October 19, 1999.
The President,
The White House.
    The President: I have the honor to submit to you the Treaty 
Between the United States of America and Ukraine on Mutual 
Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters with Annex (``the 
Treaty''), signed at Kiev on July 22, 1998. I recommend that 
the Treaty be transmitted to the Senate for its advice and 
consent to ratification.
    Also enclosed, for the information of the Senate, is an 
exchange of notes under which the Treaty is being provisionally 
applied to the extent possible under our respective domestic 
laws, in order to provide a basis for immediate mutual 
assistance in criminal matters. Provisional application would 
cease upon entry into force of the Treaty.
    The Treaty covers mutual legal assistance in criminal 
matters. In recent years, similar bilateral treaties have 
entered into force with a number of other countries. The Treaty 
with Ukraine contains all essential provisions sought by the 
United States. It will enhance our ability to investigate and 
prosecute a range of offenses. The Treaty is designed to be 
self-executing and will not require new legislation.
    Article 1 sets forth a non-exclusive list of the major 
types of assistance to be provided under the Treaty, including 
taking the testimony or statements of persons; providing 
documents, records and other items of evidence; locating or 
identifying persons or items; serving documents; transferring 
persons in custody for testimony or other purposes; executing 
requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings 
related to immobilization and forfeiture of assets, 
restitution, and collection of fines; and, rendering any other 
form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the Requested 
State. The scope of the Treaty includes not only criminal 
offenses, but also proceedings related to criminal matters, 
which may be civil or administrative in nature.
    Article 1(3) states that assistance shall be provided 
without regard to whether the conduct involved would constitute 
an offense under the laws of the Requested State.
    Article 1(4) states explicitly that the Treaty is not 
intended to create rights in private parties to obtain, 
suppress, or exclude any evidence, or to impede the execution 
of a request.
    Article 2 provides for the establishment of Central 
Authorities and defines Central Authorities for purposes of the 
Treaty. For the United States, the Central Authority shall be 
the Attorney General or a person designated by the Attorney 
General. For Ukraine, the Central Authority shall be the 
Ministry of Justice and the Office of the Prosecutor General. 
The article provides that the Central Authorities shall 
communicate directly with one another for the purposes of the 
Treaty.
    Article 3 sets forth the circumstances under which a 
Requested State's Central Authority may deny assistance under 
the Treaty. A request may be denied if it relates to a military 
offense that would not be an offense under ordinary criminal 
law. A further ground for denial is that the request relates to 
a political offense (a term expected to be defined on the basis 
of that term's usage in extradition treaties). In addition, a 
request may be denied if its execution would prejudice the 
security or similar essential interests of the Requested State, 
or if it is not made in conformity with the Treaty.
    Before denying assistance under Article 3, the Central 
Authority of the Requested State is required to consult with 
its counterpart in the Requesting State to consider whether 
assistance can be given subject to such conditions as the 
Central Authority of the RequestedState deems necessary. If the 
Requesting State accepts assistance subject to these conditions, it is 
required to comply with the conditions. If the Central Authority of the 
Requested State denies assistance, it is required to inform the Central 
Authority of the Requesting State of the reasons for the denial.
    Article 4 prescribes the form and content of written 
requests under the Treaty, specifying in detail the information 
required in each request. The article permits other forms of 
requests in emergency situations but requires written 
confirmation within ten days thereafter unless the Central 
Authority of the Requested State agrees otherwise.
    Article 5 requires the Central Authority of the Requested 
State to execute the request promptly or to transmit it to the 
authority having jurisdiction to do so. It provides that the 
competent authorities of the Requested State shall do 
everything in their power to execute a request, and that the 
courts or other competent authorities of the Requested State 
shall have authority to issue subpoenas, search and arrest 
warrants, or other orders necessary to execute the request. The 
Central Authority of the Requested State must make all 
arrangements for representation of the Requesting State in any 
proceedings arising out of an assistance request.
    Under Article 5(3), requests are to be executed in 
accordance with the laws of the Requested State except to the 
extent that the Treaty provides otherwise. However, the method 
of execution specified in the request is to be followed except 
insofar as it is prohibited by the laws of the Requested State.
    Article 5(4) provides that if the Central Authority of the 
Requested State determines that execution of the request would 
interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation, prosecution, 
or proceeding in that State, it may postpone execution or, 
after consulting with the Central Authority of the Requesting 
State, impose conditions on execution. If the Requesting State 
accepts assistance subject to the conditions, it shall comply 
with such conditions.
    Article 5(5) further requires the Requested State, if so 
requested, to use its best efforts to keep confidential a 
request and its contents, and to inform the Requesting State's 
Central Authority if the request cannot be executed without 
breaching confidentiality. This provides the Requesting State 
an opportunity to decide whether to pursue the request or to 
withdraw it in order to maintain confidentiality.
    This article additionally requires the Requested State's 
Central Authority to respond to reasonable inquiries by the 
Requesting State's Central Authority regarding the status of 
the execution of a particular request; to report promptly to 
the Requesting State's Central Authority the outcome of its 
execution; and, if the request is denied, to inform the 
Requesting State's Central Authority of the reasons for the 
denial.
    Article 6 apportions between the two States the costs 
incurred in executing a request. It provides that the Request 
State shall pay all costs, except for the following items to be 
paid by the Requesting State: fees of expert witnesses, costs 
of interpretation, translation and transcription, and 
allowances and expenses related to travel of persons pursuant 
to Articles 10 and 11. If during the execution of the request, 
it becomes apparent that extraordinary expenses will be 
entailed, the Central Authorities shall consult to determine 
the terms and conditions under which execution may continue.
    Article 7 requires the Requesting State to comply with any 
request by the Central Authority of the Requested State that 
information or evidence obtained under the Treaty not be used 
for proceedings other than those described in the request 
without its priorconsent. Further, if the Requested State's 
Central Authority asks that information or evidence furnished under 
this Treaty be kept confidential or be used in accordance with 
specified conditions, the Requesting State must use its best efforts to 
comply with the conditions. Once information is made public in the 
Requesting State in accordance with either or these provisions, no 
further limitations on use apply. Nothing in the article prevents the 
use or disclosure of information to the extent that there is an 
obligation to do so under the Constitution of the Requesting State in a 
criminal prosecution. The Requesting State is obliged to notify the 
Requesting State in advance of any such proposed use or disclosure.
    Article 8 provides that a person in the Requesting State 
from whom testimony or evidence is requested pursuant to the 
Treaty shall be compelled, if necessary, to appear and testify 
or produce items, documents and records. The article requires 
the Central Authority of the Requested State, upon request, to 
furnish information in advance about the date and place of the 
taking of testimony or evidence pursuant to this Article.
    Article 8(3) further requires the Requested State to permit 
the presence of persons specified in the request and to permit 
them to question the person giving the testimony or evidence. 
In the event that a person whose testimony or evidence is being 
taken asserts a claim of immunity, incapacity, or privilege 
under the laws of the Requesting State, Article 8(4) provides 
that the testimony or evidence shall be taken and the claim 
made known by written notification to the Central Authority of 
the Requesting State for resolution by its competent 
authorities. Finally, in order to ensure admissibility of 
evidence in the Requesting State, Article 8(5) provides a 
mechanism for authenticating evidence that is produced pursuant 
to or that is the subject of testimony taken in the Requested 
State.
    Article 9 requires that the Requested State provide the 
Requesting State with copies of publicly available records in 
the possession of government departments and agencies in the 
Requesting State. The Requested State may further provide 
copies of any documents, records or information in the 
possession of a government department or agency, but not 
publicly available, to the same extent and under the same 
conditions as it would provide them to its own law enforcement 
or judicial authorities. The Requested State has the discretion 
to refuse to execute, entirely or in part, such requests for 
records not publicly available. Article 9(3) provides that 
records produced pursuant to this Article shall, upon request, 
be certified by the appropriate form attached to the request. 
Article 9(3) also provides that no further authentication shall 
be necessary for admissibility into evidence in the Requesting 
State of official records pursuant to this Article.
    Article 10 provides a mechanism for the Requesting State to 
invite the voluntary appearance in its territory of a person 
located in the Requested State shall indicate the extent to 
which the expenses will be paid. It also states that the 
Central Authority of the Requesting State has discretion to 
determine that a person appearing in the Requesting State 
pursuant to this Article shall not be subject to service of 
process or be detained or subjected to any restriction of 
personal liberty by reason of any acts or convictions that 
preceded his departure from the Requested State. Any safe 
conduct provided for by this article ceases seven days after 
the Central Authority of the Requesting State has notified the 
Central Authority of the Requested State that the person's 
presence is no longer required, or if the person has left the 
Requesting State and voluntarily returns to it.
    Article 11 provides for temporary transfer of a person in 
custody in the Requested State or in a third State to the 
Requesting State for purposes of assistance under the Treaty 
(for example, a witness incarcerated in the Requested State may 
be transferred to have his deposition taken in the presence of 
the defendant), provided that the person in question and the 
Central Authorities of both States agree. The article also 
provides for voluntary transfer of a person in the custody of 
the Requesting State to the Requested State for purposes of 
assistance under the Treaty (for example, a defendant in the 
Requesting State may be transferred for purposes of attending a 
witness deposition in the Requesting State), if the person 
consents and if the Central Authorities of both States agree.
    Article 11(3) further establishes both the express 
authority and the obligation of the receiving State to maintain 
the person transferred in custody unless otherwise agreed by 
both Central Authorities. The return of the person transferred 
is subject to terms and conditions agreed to by the Central 
Authorities, and the sending State is not required to initiate 
extradition proceedings for return of the person transferred. 
The person transferred receives credit for time served in the 
custody of the receiving State.
    Article 12 establishes the authority of the Requested State 
to authorize transit through its territory of a person held in 
custody by a third State whose appearance has been requested by 
the Requesting State. The Requested State further has the 
authority and the obligation to keep the person in custody 
during transit. The Parties retain discretion to refuse to 
grant transit of their own nationals, however.
    Article 13 requires the Requested State to use its best 
efforts to ascertain the location or identity of persons or 
items specified in a request.
    Article 14 obligates the Requested State to use its best 
efforts to effect service of any document relating, in whole or 
in part, to any request for assistance under the Treaty. A 
request for the service of a document requiring a person to 
appear in the Requesting State must be transmitted a reasonable 
time before the scheduled appearance. Proof of service is to be 
provided in the manner specified in the request.
    Article 15 obligates the Requested State to execute 
requests for search, seizure, and delivery of any item to the 
Requesting State if the request includes the information 
justifying such action under the laws of theappropriate. The 
Central Authority of the State receiving such information is required 
to inform the Central Authority that provided the information of any 
action taken.
    Article 17 also obligates the Contracting States to assist 
each other to the extent permitted by their respective laws in 
proceedings relating to forfeiture of the proceeds and 
instrumentalities of offenses, restitution to victims of crime, 
and collection of fines imposed as sentences in criminal 
prosecutions. This may include action to temporarily immobilize 
the proceeds or instrumentalities pending further proceedings. 
The Contracting State having custody over proceeds or 
instrumentalities of offenses is required to dispose of them in 
accordance with its laws. Either Contracting State may transfer 
all or part of such assets, or the proceeds of their sale, to 
the extent permitted by the transferring State's laws and upon 
such terms as it deems appropriate.
    Article 18 states that assistance and procedures provided 
in the Treaty shall not prevent either Contracting State from 
granting assistance to the other Contracting State through the 
provisions of other applicable international agreements or 
through the provisions of its national law. The Contracting 
States may also provide assistance pursuant to any bilateral 
arrangement, agreement, or practice which may be applicable.
    Article 19 provides that the Central Authorities of the 
Contracting States shall consult, at times mutually agreed, to 
promote the most effective use of the Treaty, and may agree 
upon such practical measures as may be necessary to facilitate 
the Treaty's implementation.
    Article 20 provides that the Treaty is subject to 
ratification and the instruments shall be exchanged at 
Washington as soon as possible. The Treaty enters into force 
upon the exchange of instruments of ratification. Article 20 
further provides that either Contracting State may terminate 
the Treaty by written notice to the other Contracting State, 
with termination to be effective six months following the date 
of notification.
    A Technical Analysis explaining in detail the provisions of 
the Treaty is being prepared by the United States negotiating 
delegation, consisting of representatives from the Departments 
of Justice and State, and will be transmitted separately to the 
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
    The Department of Justice joins the Department of State in 
favoring approval of this Treaty by the Senate as soon as 
possible.
    Respectfully submitted,
                                                    Strobe Talbott.

Source: Congress online

Manufactured Consent, Original Research Essay

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
History/ Government
______________________________

Does voting matter? Some Americans believe voting is an essential part of one’s civic responsibility. While other Americans do not think that voting does anything at all. Both perspectives have their pros and cons.

Voting used to mean: one person one say. Now, voting is used by the elite political class to manufacture consent. Voting is also a way to pull consent away from politicians and agendas the People do not wish to follow. It is just a matter of perspective.

So what do we do as a nation? Vote the better of two evils? Or, do we just stop voting when the direction of the country goes off course?

Some uninformed person is always going to vote. That is the nature of our world. Voting is going to happen, so why not vote against the system? Vote against career politicians. Vote against any agenda that takes rights away from any group or individual.

The elite class understands the rules of public administration: agendas must be made public in one way or another, consent must be granted, and the People must be dumbed down in order for the voters to play the cyclical nature of the elite’s consent game.

Round and round, we go. Nothing ever changes for the better; no matter what we do. It is time for a change, how about you?  

Let’s take a look at the events, laws, and agreements that have led America into its present precarious predicament:

When our nation was founded in 1776, the new government understood that the People’s liberties, freedoms, and rights had to be secured from this political theater called manufactured consent.

In the original Constitution, federal and state powers were enumerated as well as balanced. The House of Representatives were elected by popular vote: “The House of Representatives will derive its powers from the people of America” (Federalist No 39). Senators were appointed by their respective states:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, 3 for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote (Constitution, Article I, Section 3).

James Madison in the Federalist No. 39: The Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles confirmed that in order to protect state’s rights, and the rights of the ordinary citizen, one of the bicameral institutions must reflect that origination:

“The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and co-equal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate” (Federalist No 39).  

Later the 17^th Amendment changed how Senators were elected.

AMENDMENT XVII

Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

In this manner, the power of the states were diminished for the majority rule of democracy instead of retaining the ideals of a balanced and equal republic. This instance was not the first time the Constitution, federal powers were altered in favor of centralization.  

Within 73 years of the Federalist papers, the Civil War began. The landscape of our nation changed especially with General Orders 100, the Lieber Code. President Abraham Lincoln’s famous doctrine, which placed the United States under Martial Law after the southern “Rebel” states walked away from the Union due to the federal government’s overreach of power.

Section I.1 of the Instruction for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field (General Orders 100, Lieber Code) states: 

A place, district, or country occupied by an enemy stands in consequence of the occupation, under the Martial Law of the invading or occupying army, whether any proclamation declaring Martial Law, or  any public warning to the inhabitants, has been issued or not. Martial Law is the immediate and direct effect and consequence of occupation or conquest. The presence of a hostile army proclaims its Martial Law.

Martial Law was enacted by executive authority. General Orders 100 as well as the suspension of Habeas Corpus was a clear violation of the Constitution’s separation of powers. Yet, the executive branch’s obstruction of the rule of law not only continued but has further abridged our liberties and Constitution ever since.

When the Civil War first erupted, President Lincoln worked with the power he did maintain. Under the original, organic Constitution without the constituted federal legislature of all the states, Congress, what he retained was his station as Commander in Chief.

That is why President Lincoln with the assistance of Francis Lieber constructed the codification of the laws of war. This doctrine is why Executive Orders hold weight. Why we are still under Martial Law today.

Since President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated before he could fulfill his plan: bring back the southern states into the Union by force and sanitize the southern states’ constitutions to fit with the rest of the Union, he was unable to resend the General Orders 100.

Many Presidents laud their affection for President Lincoln. How they will govern like the former president. How they will bring the nation together.

Contemporary presidents leave out many facts in their bid to win over the American people like Marital Law, annual states of emergency legislation, and the suspension of the original, organic Constitution, Bill of Rights, federal and state governments. So a vote for President Lincoln and his successor is a vote for endless wars and enslavement.

Quite ironic.                                                                    

After Lincoln’s presidency ended with that fateful shot, the politicians of the time sought control by ignoring the Founder’s vision for this country. Future politicians of the time passed legislation that took the nation further away from its republican principles like the Act of 1871. Since the incorporated municipality of the District of Columbia had already been established decades before, the reason for this new incorporation was to create a corporation separate from the government itself.

This private corporation, masquerading as the United States of America, adopted the original Constitution and Bill of Rights with a couple of exceptions. First, the original thirteenth amendment, which had been ratified, was erased from history. Second, the Constitution and Bill of Rights became fluid. The phrase heard today is: a Living Document. That means whatever interpretation can be conjured for the good of the elite ruling class, who control the government from behind the scenes, becomes the new law of the land. Hence the contradictions seen in the 20^st Century’s judicial case law (Erie Railroad Co. vs. Thompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L. Ed. 1188) where Common Law is no longer applicable as well as in the 21^st Century’s public sphere between what the Bill of Rights dictates versus political hot button topics such as gun control, privacy rights, and warrantless searches.

Until the elite controlled power structure can chip away all the liberties that are assigned to every living human being regardless of class, creed, gender, or religion, the manipulative game of manufactured consent will continue. Unalienable rights are not bestowed and therefore cannot be taken by any government, law, religion, or tradition. Rights cannot be stolen; rights must be relinquished.

That is why manufactured consent is very important to the elite ruling class. If the public can be manipulated to blame others in the world for their problems, then asking the People to surrender their rights becomes rudimentary. Once someone, anyone, stands up and refuses to consent, the elite have to create social strife in order to bully the public into submission.

The elite love silence. Silence is acquiescence to their agenda. So the elites can move forward and condemn the world population to whatever immoral and unethical plan that is on the table from population control, surveillance, world wars, terrorism, mass migration, sustainability, climate engineering, global taxation, and genetic manipulation of genomes. 

For over one hundred and fifty years, the People of the United States have been maneuvered into this hyper-elitist, paranoid, chattel-driven, oligarchic, police state structure that is seen today. The opposite of what the original, organic Constitution and Bill of Rights had intended. The United States was supposed to be a beacon of hope in a world full of tyrants, not a militaristic pawn hell bent on domesticating the world for the profit and racketeering of a very few.

That is the crux of Martial Law and why we must challenge every aspect of federal expansion of powers especially in terms of the executive branch.

By this avenue, the People have a way to take their country back from the foreign powers that rule it by: educating themselves on actual historical data, becoming public servants themselves, voting against manufactured consent, and holding a Constitutional Convention.

A Constitutional Convention should have certain items on its agenda to free the People of the United States and the world from the elite clutches of one world governance. One the original, organic Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States need to be restored. The state legislatures and governors  need  to  reseat their original jurisdiction Senators

Manufactured Consent                                                  13

to the Senate of the United States’ Congress. First and foremost though, General Orders 100 needs to be rescinded so that the United States of America can reclaim its lawful authority once again. That would lead to the dissolution of the corporate government by repealing the Act of 1871 (the District of Columbia Organic Act, or DCOA) and rejecting all remaining foreign entanglements. The People again would be in control of their destiny.  

As for education, the American people must delve further into the corruption and treason that is the corporation: the United States. America has some big problems, namely, its inability to represent or defend its own people as well as its reliance on foreign money and interests. Combined, these threats undermine the very Constitution, the corporation is supposed to uphold by its adoption into its bylaws.

Rather than be true to its founding principles, the United States corporation protects its foreign puppeteers and its own power base. By doing so, the United States corporation betrays the Constitution and the American people.

In the ultimate act of treachery, the corporation passed the Trading with the Enemies Act in 1917, 50 U.S. Code Chapter 53, and the act was amended in 1933, which defined the role of the People as enemies of the corporation. The People have become the enemies of the United States, incorporated.

Again the past is prologue. These acts and future proclamations derive from the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798. Politicians loyal to the British Monarchy wanted a show of force against anyone aligning with foreigners for an anticipated battle with France. These acts:

increased the residency requirement for American citizenship from five to fourteen years, authorized the president to imprison or deport aliens considered "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States" and restricted speech critical of the government.

Although this led to a populace revolt in Congress, this legislation was the hallmark for later acts to be used against the People. If the government can make associations and transactions criminal before, during, or after hostilities with another country, then a government is dangerous to its People indeed.

President Franklin Roosevelt accomplished this goal with the expansion of the Trading with the Enemies Act in 1933 by declaring Americans enemies of the corporation and seizing their assets without due process of law. The pretext was a run on the banks and depletion of the gold reserves for the nation.

President Roosevelt’s Proclamation 2039 read in part:

Whereas it is provided in Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. L. 411), as amended, "That the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange and the export, hoarding, melting, or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency . . ."; and
Whereas it is provided in Section 16 of the said Act "That whoever shall willfully violate any of the provisions of this Act or of any license, rule, or regulation issued thereunder, and whoever shall willfully violate, neglect, or refuse to comply with any order of the President issued in compliance with the provisions of this Act, shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $10,000, or, if a natural person, imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both . . .";
Now, Therefore I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, in view of such national emergency and by virtue of the authority vested in me by said Act and in order to prevent the export, hoarding, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, do hereby proclaim, order, direct and declare that from Monday, the Sixth day of March, to Thursday, the Ninth day of March, Nineteen Hundred and Thirty-three, both dates inclusive, there shall be maintained and observed by all banking institutions and all branches thereof located in the United States of America, including the territories and insular possessions, a bank holiday, and that during said period all banking transactions shall be suspended. During such holiday, excepting as hereinafter provided, no such banking institution or branch shall pay out, export, earmark, or permit the withdrawal or transfer in any manner or by any device whatsoever, of any gold or silver coin or bullion or currency or take any other action which might facilitate the hoarding thereof; nor shall any such banking institution or branch pay out deposits, make loans or discounts, deal in foreign exchange, transfer credits from the United States to any place abroad, or transact any other banking business whatsoever.

A dangerous precedent was established in Proclamation numbered 2039 as well as the proceeding one, Proclamation 2040: Bank Holiday. The corporation was now the conqueror of the American people.

Still do not believe so? Then how many licenses do you need to get through the day?

According to Section 3a and 3b of the Trading with the Enemies Act, the United States makes unlawful: “Trading in United States with enemy or ally, or for benefit thereof, without a license.”

Americans need a driver’s license to move freely about the territory. A business license is necessary to create an income and provide jobs to others. How about a license to practice law, medicine, or psychiatry? How about the need for a National ID? The list of licensure is endless.

Without a doubt, the American way of life is in deep trouble when freedoms are regulated by the issuance of licenses for a fee.

In addition to the other acts of obstruction to the rule of law, Congress then enacted the War Powers Act of 1933, which concentrated more executive power. In 1973 the Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency was convened to see if the act was even still necessary. The Report from this committee states:

Over the course of at least the last 40 years, then, Presidents have had available an enormous - seemingly expanding and never-ending - range of emergency powers. Indeed, at their fullest extent and during the height of a crisis, these "prerogative" powers appear to be virtually unlimited, confirming Locke's perceptions. Because Congress and the public are unaware of the extent of emergency powers, there has never been any notable congressional or public objection made to this state of affairs. Nor have the courts imposed significant limitations.

The report goes on to explain:

Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971.

These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal Constitutional processes.

Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.  

Extraordinary legislative expansions of executive power are on record and have increased with each passing Presidency. The checks and balances of the original Constitution have been breached as well as the contract between the corporation and the People. In these consecutive legislative surrenders, increasing influence of executive authority has produced startling examples of the failure to adhere to the Constitution or even the courage to curtail Martial Law in any way, shape, or form.

Thus both the Trading with the Enemies Act and the War Powers Act by their breadth led to the modern day laws like the Patriot Act, NDAA indefinite detention clause, and mass surveillance as allowable under corporate rule.

The corporation continued its assault on the American people this time on the international stage. The corporation known as the United States signed treaties and agreements that gave away its presumed sovereignty and the rights of the People to govern themselves.

Today’s international agreements have the Lieber Code as their foundation for the codification was misused to usher the United States into the 1874 Brussels Conference and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. This led the future United States of America to accept further compliance to foreign interests. In the 20^th Century, those major acts were: the Bretton Woods Agreements and the ensuing treaty with the United Nations.

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 allowed for those agreements by laying more of the groundwork. The Act of 1913 reads in part:

An Act to provide for the establishment of Federal reserve banks, to furnish an elastic currency, to afford means of rediscounting commercial paper, to establish a more effective supervision of banking in the United States, and for other purposes (US Code, p. 251).  

With this act and the National Banking Act of 1933, the United States Treasury was handed over to the private central bankers. Whereas the Constitution makes the responsibility clear that the Congress is:

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; (Article I, Section 8).

So without an Amendment to the Constitution, how is Congress allowed to privatize their duties as the stewards of the Treasury and surrender the agency to a foreign corporation? Neither aforementioned acts accomplish this task. The acts only create law, not amend it.  

Which brings us to the Bretton Woods Agreements of 1944, this international agreement approved by the Congress as a congressional-executive agreement (CEA) and not specifically a “treaty” created the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. 

The United States Code (USC) Title 22 § 286 states:

§ 286. Acceptance of membership by the United States in International Monetary Fund.

The President is hereby authorized to accept membership for the United States in the International Monetary Fund (hereinafter referred to as the "Fund"), and in the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (hereinafter referred to as the "Bank"), provided for by the Articles of Agreement of the Fund and the Articles of Agreement of the Bank as set forth in the Final Act of the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference dated July 22, 1944, and deposited in the archives of the Department of State. (July 31, 1945, ch. 339, § 2, 59 Stat. 512.)

A CEA is allowable in lieu of treaty ratification when an agreement is not binding in perpetuity. Thomas Jefferson stated about agreements:  

It is desirable, in many instances, to exchange mutual advantages by Legislative Acts rather than by treaty: because the former, though understood to be in consideration of each other, and therefore greatly respected, yet when they become too inconvenient, can be dropped at the will of either party: whereas stipulations by treaty are forever irrevocable but by joint consent let a change of circumstances render them ever so bothersome.

CEAs can only cover matters which the Constitution states that is within the powers of Congress and the President to legislate or execute. Yet there have been conflicts with this form of “agreement”.

When the Migratory Bird Act of 1918 conflicted with the Tenth Amendment and states rights, the Supreme Court weighed in on one of these congressional-executive agreements in the case State of Missouri v. Holland, United States Game Warden. 

The judgment of the Supreme Court concluded that the Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2, made international policy above the concerns of individual states and therefore gives CEAs the ability to abridge state laws, the freedoms of the People, by amending the Constitution through treaties, agreements, and acts on the international stage.

The long way around but the foundation is again set. Congress has used “acts” to maneuver around the Constitution and states rights. Acts such as the Federal Reserve Act, The National Banking Act, and now the Bretton Woods Act shows a history of ignoring the Constitution for a pragmatist’s view of constructivist law instead of the original interpretation of it.  

Since the United States transferred assets to the IMF, some have argued that the other provisions in the Bretton Woods Agreement have created a quitclaim action over the corporation known as the United States. Public law 48 Stat. 342. 31 USC, Supp. IV, § 822a-c states the “Secretary of the Treasury is directed to use $1,800,000,000” to pay the subscription fees to the IMF, plus an additional $950,000,000. In order to pay the IMF, the Treasury used public-debt transactions.

To further explore the scope of the entanglements, the Bretton Woods Agreement Act stated: “provided for É as set forth in the Final Act of the United Nations.” An odd phrase since the United Nations Treaty with the United States that is recorded happened on December 20, 1945, five months after the Bretton Woods Conference.

Under these financial acts, agreements, and treaties of the 20^th Century, the corporation known as the United States ceased to exist, as it was known, if the quitclaim is to be asserted. A quitclaim is:

A quitclaim deed is a release by the grantor, or conveyor of the deed, of any interest the grantor may have in the property described in the deed. Generally a quitclaim deed relieves the grantor of liability regarding the ownership of the property. Thus, the grantor of a quitclaim deed will not be liable to the grantee, or recipient of the deed, if a competing claim to the property is later discovered. A quitclaim deed is not a guarantee that the grantor has clear title to the property; rather it is a relinquishment of the grantor's rights, if any, in the property.

For instance, the original owner of the corporation known as the United States was the actual government of the United States of America. After the agreement under Bretton Woods, the IMF became the owner of the corporation known as the United States, in which all rights were relinquished. The United States, including its Treasury, are now owned lock, stock, and barrel by Great Britain’s Bank of International Settlements (Central Bankers), which just happens to own the IMF.

Welcome back to the British Monarchy.

So when someone states that our corporate government is a foreign entity, that person is correct. The above acts and agreements make that reality all too clear: the United States is a foreign controlled entity. Therefore by default, the corporation known as the United States has many conflicts of interest: one, between the foreign central bankers and corporate monopolies that control it and two, with the rest of the nation and the People it is supposed to represent.

Our so-called government is for all intents and purposes a front for any elite (e.g., banker, monarch, and bureaucrat) power broker to use as that person or entity sees fit and calls it America. The dummy corporation and its officers are more interested in what elites can do for them than protecting the rights of the American People. The opposite of Truth, Justice, and the American way has become standard issue. Our Revolutionary War efforts have succumbed to the tyrants our Founders fought against through the failings of dictatorial executive power.  

What are the rebels and free thinkers to do about this whole mess? How are we to disengage ourselves from the unlawful, illegal, and illegitimate foreign occupation of our suspended government? Is there a nonviolent resolution ready for the taking?

A Constitutional Convention would resolve much of the imbalance by reinstituting states rights. What America needs is a tabula rasa, clean slate, to start over from scratch. In the interim, Americans must contend with the question that began this treatise: Does voting even matter at this point?

Since the United States corporation adopted the Constitution and Bill of Rights, save one, voting has become a means of controlling the populace and the government message, not an exercise in freedom. So to that end, no, voting does not seem to matter.

However we must not get caught up in the minutia, we must explore the wider canvas. There seems to be some weaknesses in the foreign corporate strategy that appears to be exploitable: consent, voting, and patriotic political candidates.

When the People back individuals for office who expose the fraud of our governance and laws, the politicians who play king-makers all of a sudden demonize, ridicule, and attack the People’s choice. Why?

If the elections are already rigged, why would the establishment revolt against a populace uprising at the voting booth?

When the ruling elite place their political puppets in elections, the voters are corralled into voting for the elite’s agenda thereby giving their reluctant “consent”. A choice between two elite controlled candidates is manufactured consent, but consent to the illegitimate foreign corporate agenda nonetheless.

With consent of the governed, no matter the lies spewed and allegiances unkept by the political establishment once voted in, the People acquiesce to the mistake of voting in the victor. The elite have their consent. The People feel responsible for the ensuing mess. No rebellion or uprising is feared by the corrupt ruling elite.

If a nationalistic or populace candidate gains strong support, the elite’s puppets jump onto the nearest media show to explain how the People are powerless and voiceless in the election of politicians. To that end, political parties have become the talking heads for the corrupt global elite establishment who hold America in perpetual Martial Law. Thus the political king-makers have made themselves obsolete as the People are now wise to the evolving deception to stagnant their motility and compromise their liberties.

In the wake of ping ponging a populace between two foreign corporate sponsored political parties that are only loyal to the elite oligarchic, monopoly power structure, the People should vote… them all out of power. If the chink in the armor is to cast a vote in the opposite direction back to liberty, then cast away, but be forewarned:

If a politician takes any corporate money, do not vote for that politician. If a politician takes money from a political party, do not vote for that politician. If a politician espouses a religious preference, do not vote for that politician. If that politician has dual citizenship with any country, do not vote for that politician. And, so on.

The establishment will use any lie, dirty trick, or religious dogma to their benefit at the voting booth. Just as a compromised candidate and associated political party will use any means necessary to create fear, distrust, and even controversy in order to control the political narrative and manufacture consent for the elite’s destructive policies of total foreign dictatorial control through local means.

Ignore their rhetoric and vote in patriotic candidates who are awake to the depressing facts of our conquered nation. Always speak out against encroachments on rights since silence is compliance with regards to the elite’s agenda of domination. Thus, votes can become the rejection of manufactured consent.

The People can return to their founding principles if the People remember what it is to be free. A free nation creates laws based on hope for the future. A free People vote to expand liberty and rights for all.  

To that end, Americans need to reinstitute their founding government by electing officials outside the elite power structure’s elections. That would help the United States reclaim its original jurisdiction. A Constitutional Convention would assist in uncoupling the United States from its corporate holdings, elite agenda, and foreign interests.

Manufactured Consent                                                  25

Americans greatest strength is educating themselves and others about the historical deviation that is taught in schools in order to dumb the People down into accepting foreign corporate rule. The elite have set forth their agenda in the public sphere over the decades. It is time the People realize the deception and learn what has been hidden from generation after generation of Americans.

Until the United States is unencumbered from the damage inflicted upon the nation by decades of corrupt policies, laws, and executive orders, the nation will continue to be embroiled in wars, debt, and social strife.

The People must be vigilant and continue to refuse their consent. Consent is the only reason that the United States has lost its grandeur and credibility in the world. And, consent is the only way the People are going to return to the Golden Age of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

If you vote, vote wisely. 

Sources:

The citations listed below are from the original source materials.

63^rd Congress (1913, December 23). Federal Reserve Act. Retrieved from: http://uscode.house.gov/ statviewer.htm?volume=38&page=251#

65^th Congress (1917, October 6,). Trading with the Enemies Act. Retrieved from: http://uscode.house.gov/ statviewer.htm?volume=40&page=411#

79th Congress (1945, July 31). 22 U.S. Code § 286 - Acceptance of membership by United States in International Monetary Fund. Retrieved from: http://uscode.house.gov/ statviewer.htm?volume=59&page=512#

79^th Congress (1945, July 31). Bretton Woods Agreement. Retrieved from: http://uscode.house.gov/ statviewer.htm?volume=59&page=512#

93rd Congress (1973, November 19). Report of the Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency, United States Senate. Retrieved from: http://www.ncrepublic.org/ images/lib/SenateReport93_549.pdf

Alien and Sedition Acts (1798). Retrieved from: http://www.loc.gov/rr/ program/bib/ourdocs/Alien.html

Bretton Woods Agreements (1944, July 22). Articles of Agreement of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Retrieved from: http://www.teamlaw.org/ BWAgreements.pdf

Committee on Foreign Relations (2001, January). Treaties and Other International Agreements: The Role of the United States Senate. Retrieved from: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/ awcgate/congress/treaties_senate_role.pdf

Constitution of the United States, The (1788, June 21).

Retrieved from:  http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/ charters/constitution_transcript.html

Constitution of the United States, The (1788, June 21). Amendment XVII. Retrieved from: http://www.archives.gov/ exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

Constitution of the United States, The (1788, June 21). Article I, Section 8. Retrieved from:  https://www.law.cornell.edu/ constitution/articlei

District of Columbia Organic Act (1871, February 21). Act of 1871. Retrieved from: https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-XuT7yoQ9PctoP2Ac/District%20Of%20Columbia%20Organic%20Act%20Of%201871#page/n0/mode/2up

Farlex, Inc. (2016, June 19). The Free Dictionary: Quitclaim. Retrieved from: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/ quitclaim+deed

Jefferson, Thomas (January 18, 1791). Report of the Secretary of State to the President quoted in The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia (1900). Retrieved from: https://books.google.com/books?id=2D0gAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA879&lpg=PA879&dq=%22exchange+mutual+advantages+by+legislative+acts+rather+than%22&source=web&ots=gou7KSMAqs&sig=xNN6ME3nb0tM0eLIhFU30piw6a0&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%22exchange%20mutual%20advantages%20by%20legislative%20acts%20rather%20than%22&f=false

   

United States Senate (1973, November 19). Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency Retrieved from:  http://www.ncrepublic.org/ images/lib/SenateReport93_549.pdf

Lieber, LL.D., Francis (1863, April 24). Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field. Retrieved from: http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/Instructions-gov-armies.pdf#page=3&zoom=110,92,326

Madison, James (1788, January). The Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles For the Independent Journal. Federalist 39.

Retrieved from: https://www.congress.gov/resources/ display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-39

Queen Elizabeth. (2012, August 4). Law: Legal Notice: Bank of International Settlements. Retrieved from: https://sites.google.com/site/australianimperialcrowncorp/ home/bank-for-international-settlements

Roosevelt, Franklin D. (March 6, 1933). Proclamation 2039. Retrieved from: http://www.lawandfreedom.com/ site/executive/execorders/Roosevelt.pdf

Roosevelt, Franklin D. (March 9, 1933). Proclamation 2040: Bank Holiday. Retrieved from: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=14485

Conservative Whine: The Original Social Justice Warriors

Staff Writer, DL Mullan

Patriarchy / Theocracy 
______________________________

In the age of your rights end where my feelings begin Social Justice crapola, we get another example of the hypocrisy from the patriarchy. The message is clear that freedom is when conservatives do not have to take responsibility for living in a Republic but demand all of the protections created by it.

The Religious Right is the birth parents of Social Justice tantrums and look what it has gotten us. Women are sacrificed on the alter of whaaa! Conservatives defund birth control and abortions citing religious exemptions and morality.

Except birth control reduces the number of abortions, so what is immoral, unethical, or impractical about making sure birth control is available to all young women? The problem is not having control of women. Control of anyone is slavery. Isn't the Religious Right against that too? 

In an article on LiveScience called Free Birth Control Cuts Abortion Rate by 62 Percent, anyone can see that proper medical care counters the number of unintended pregnancies.

Among women in the free contraceptive program, the teen birth rate was 6.3 per 1,000 women, a huge difference from the national teen birth rate of 34.3 per 1,000 women.

Likewise, the abortion rate among women in the program was 4.4 to 7.5 per 1,000 between 2008 and 2010. Nationally, there are 19.6 abortions per every thousand women, a 62 percent to 78 percent difference. In the St. Louis area, the overall abortion rate in that time frame was between 13.4 and 17 abortions per 1,000 women.

So shouldn't that study be lauded by conservatives of the Religious Right to protect women's' health initiatives? That would be a resounding: no. One quote garnered from a conservative, alt right radio host is: "I don't want to have to pay for it!"

But in reality, no legislation has ever had to be passed to force employers or insurance companies to cover erectile dysfunction treatments, most types of male reproductive prescriptions are covered by insurance. In 52% of the human population that is female, why are women paying for that cost when women's protection from unwanted pregnancies are refuted, if conservatives want to be petty about it?

Conservative men have no problem having sex with women and creating babies. Yet, these same men who help create the problem of abortion refuse women the opportunity of not having one.

Problem Reaction Solution.

Sounds like conservative men do not understand that women are not pleasure bots. We are feeling human beings who want to find a balance between family and self-fulfillment. Without birth control or abortions, especially for the life of the mother, genetic abnormalities, or worse, women become nothing but sexual toys burdened by antiquated theology. 

In the light of fairness, freedom, and equity, the conservative argument against preserving women's reproductive health services including birth control loses all credibility. 

To take the reality further, many neglected and abused children live as prisoners in foster care.

Over 400,000 American children are in foster care, taken away when their families are in crisis and can’t take care of them.

How many of these children were unintended pregnancies?  We have to wonder. We are also left to wonder where all the conservatives are to adopt these children? 

These children and their families are directly effected by the "let someone else care" philosophy of the Religious Right. The Right has no problem dictating economic, political, and religious policies to the rest of America. The question remains: can America afford to keep entertaining these religious tantrums? Anyone with a moral or ethical conscience would be remiss to do so.  

Still the cry for religion to be exalted in society is prevalent as preachers interfere with politics, push their religion in public schools, and never pay a dime in  property taxes. 

On the website called Christianity an interesting point was made:

I find it fascinating that certain groups on the Right want pastors to "speak up." What they mean by this, of course, is to more overtly endorse their preferred candidates and/or moral issues. But what they don't understand is that pastors are speaking up, it's just that what pastors are speaking up about may not be the taking points of the current season.And, the Bible cuts against both parties, against all political persuasions....So some would say the Bible is very conservative. And yet that would be incomplete, because you will also find in Scripture many texts on justice, the plight of the poor, treatment of the immigrant. And who Jesus' chief antagonists were in the gospels? The Pharisees, the Religious Right of their day.  

Should pastors speak about in the pulpit about contemporary issues? Yes, but only when the texts of Scripture clearly articulate it. They shouldn't bow to any party's talking points. They shouldn't slant their sermons to fit a political profile. They shouldn't become wannabee pundits in the pulpit. They should preach the Word and let it do it's work in the hearts of the people, who will then go influence their communities. 

And, the argument from the Founding Fathers of the United States would say: No. Religion should not be apart of our political or justice systems. The simple fact of swearing on the Bible is hypocrisy. 

 

In the article, 10 Founding Fathers Quotes That Will Make Conservatives’ Heads Explode, we can read of list of statements made by Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and others that contradict the political, social, and religious edicts demanded by the Religious Right in our country. Statements such as

“The power of all corporations ought to be limited, […] the growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses.”
— James Madison

Corporations were never intended to become megaconglomerates or transnationals. The fact that corporations bribe our politicians and write their own laws supports Madison's assertion. America needs to break up monopolies as well as make corporations less influential.

Another concern: a conservative radio show host has also expressed his intolerance for worker's protections under the law. 

“He who is the author of a war, lets loose the whole contagion of hell, and opens a vein that bleeds a nation to death.”
— Thomas Paine: The Crisis No. V, 1797

Conservatives under the banner of Globalism have murdered millions of people and destroyed the environment for the sake of controlling other people's natural resources.

“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Horatio Spofford, 1814

Religion was not the foundation of the American Dream. The subtraction of religion was the impetus. Freedom and rights cannot be weighed in the fantasy of a god.

Just ask women.

“As to Taxes, they are evidently inseparable from Government. It is impossible without them to pay the debts of the nation, to protect it from foreign danger, or to secure individuals from lawless violence and rapine.” –= Alexander Hamilton: Address to the Electors of the State of New York, March, 1801

A certain level of taxation is necessary for the sake of our society, yet taxes are cut for the wealthiest time and time again with the promise of jobs and prosperity that never come. 

Conservatives cry: taxation is theft, but when everyone else not making a living wage is forced onto social services because the taxes for that segment of society are too high and the good paying jobs were outsourced to the Third World to make Share Holders rich, conservatives scream: "laziness!," "you waste your money on junk food!," and, of course: that women are sluts for having children or feminists for divorcing their abusive husbands.

Conservatism has been a bane to freedom and rights since the beginning of history. Our forefathers wrote of such concerns and repudiated religious exercise in politics. Today, conservative radio shows, celebrities, and writers want to rewrite history and revert back to a stifling theocracy for anyone who is not white, male, and Christian.

Those days are over. The patriarchy needs to understand that the rest of us live here too. Time to grow up, stop flailing your tantrums on television and radio, and finally realize that you cherry pick ideals to stand behind all the while negating your duties to this Republic.

Source: Foster Club, Christianity, Democratic Underground,