1871 DC Corp, National Emergencies, bankruptcy

[shaberon]

I'm as interested as anyone else concerning what went wrong with the U. S. government, and the incipience of transnational corporations towards dictatorial power.

There are some things that are somewhat off track in the literature about uncovering their machinations. One being an assertion about Emergencies. For example, in the 90s, a veterinarian from Colorado harped on the fact that the "1933 banking emergency" had been exempted from the National Emergencies Act. True; but it was studied for another year and then curtailed. No emergencies automatically live in perpetuity; this is codified in USC 50, sec 1601 and following. They can be renewed annually, as the 9/11 Emergency has been, and this is announced by the White House, then published in the Federal Register. If not, any emergency expires.

Now whether this means USC 12 sec 95 has any authority, I'm not sure yet, but there hasn't been any 1933 Banking Emergency for almost forty years.

Bankruptcy is not generally a term that applies to governments; they can be insolvent, and they can default on payments. Certainly, 1933 was a partial default by the repudiation of lawful money, but the payments were still made. That was at least somewhat motivated by the large amount of 20 year Treasury notes from World War I that were coming due. There's no gold, have some FRNs, may have suited banks and industries that were the major holders.

A corporation can, of course, go bankrupt (court orders a transfer of assets to creditors). In 1871, Congress established a government for D. C., being things like a mayor and a council. This seems to have been popularized as a "corporate copy" of the federal government. I've had difficulty finding anything to back up that assertion: what actually does?

I do want to cut through the "onion", but not to make new mistakes in doing so.

[Carmody]

the president can evoke national security and become a defacto dictator, via that means, even including covering up the fact that the emergency was declared. Basically one simple declaration on the presidential record of acts, per year. About a renewal. And that's it. The rest can be secret.

Apparently, this has been done every year since at least carter, by all presidents. Don't know if it is true, but I did read it from at least one well known writer. Can't remember who exactly, though.

This, of course, brings you to transnational corporations sponsoring and insisting on particular presidential candidates (controlling people media, etc), down to the point of their 'group control' of the two major political parties.

Thus the oligarchy's 'person' in the presidential office, running in a state of emergency, under wraps, committing grievous sins and attempting planetary hegemony using the might and technology available to the US offices of the president.

I don't believe that any US citizen has ever seen democracy, in their entire lives. It's a nice story, with a bit of lip service paid to it, but democracy? No.

[ozmirage]

Posted by shaberon (here)
I'm as interested as anyone else concerning what went wrong with the U. S. government, and the incipience of transnational corporations towards dictatorial power.

There are some things that are somewhat off track in the literature about uncovering their machinations. One being an assertion about Emergencies. For example, in the 90s, a veterinarian from Colorado harped on the fact that the "1933 banking emergency" had been exempted from the National Emergencies Act. True; but it was studied for another year and then curtailed. No emergencies automatically live in perpetuity; this is codified in USC 50, sec 1601 and following. They can be renewed annually, as the 9/11 Emergency has been, and this is announced by the White House, then published in the Federal Register. If not, any emergency expires.

Now whether this means USC 12 sec 95 has any authority, I'm not sure yet, but there hasn't been any 1933 Banking Emergency for almost forty years.

Bankruptcy is not generally a term that applies to governments; they can be insolvent, and they can default on payments. Certainly, 1933 was a partial default by the repudiation of lawful money, but the payments were still made. That was at least somewhat motivated by the large amount of 20 year Treasury notes from World War I that were coming due. There's no gold, have some FRNs, may have suited banks and industries that were the major holders.

A corporation can, of course, go bankrupt (court orders a transfer of assets to creditors). In 1871, Congress established a government for D. C., being things like a mayor and a council. This seems to have been popularized as a "corporate copy" of the federal government. I've had difficulty finding anything to back up that assertion: what actually does?

I do want to cut through the "onion", but not to make new mistakes in doing so.

If the liars (ahem) lawyers say there's "no emergency" nor bankruptcy yet governments can't pay their debts, pursuant to Art 1, Sec. 10, USCON, let's just say there's a failure in communication.

A worthless iOU (federal reserve note) denominated in dollars is still worthless.
Until government will redeem those notes as required by law (12 USC Sec. 411), in my humble understanding of language, the government is BUSTED, bankrupt, kaput.

And to get YOU and I to accept those notes as "legal tender" required the BIG LIE of Socialist InSecurity / FICA so that we became obligated parties on that debt, is still no proof that the emergency ended.

If anything, CONgress dug themselves deeper and farther into the hole.

Bypassing the CONstitution is prima facie evidence of a perpetual 'temporary' State of Emergency. If you wish to believe otherwise, we will have to agree to disagree.

As to the consequences of being bankrupt, the government cannot surrender property to a creditor, since it is a trustee. Which is why the CONgress went through the hassle of creating a bizarre new tax in the midst of the Great Depression, via FICA... And to give the creditors some way to get satisfaction.

But imagine what happens when a sizable portion of Americans dare withdraw from FICA... say 10%. Instead of 320 million human resources, 10% of the collateral walked.
Will the creditor be pleased?
No.
Will the government lose revenue and legal authority to rule them?
Yes.

Which explains why no public official nor candidate will expound on the nature of our CONSENT to be governed and our remedy to withdraw that consent.

[ozmirage]

The following is an excerpt from work by John Nelson.
http://freedom-school.com/law/bankfraud1.htm

I have met John Nelson, and he's a diligent researcher. Sometimes I disagree with his conclusions, but his research is usually on point, when he sticks to law. Unfortunately, he can become victim of disinformation when he strays off the law.

(Such as the bogus : "Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars" Research Technical Manual TM-SW7905.1)

Ironically, he was unaware that citizens, by definition, surrendered endowed rights. Or that participation in FICA was how the government gained the legal authority to bypass the USCON. Which only goes to show how successful the world's greatest propaganda ministry is.

[shaberon]

Posted by Carmody (here)
the president can evoke national security and become a defacto dictator, via that means, even including covering up the fact that the emergency was declared. Basically one simple declaration on the presidential record of acts, per year. About a renewal. And that's it. The rest can be secret.

What gives them the ability to cover it up? When making declarations, they cite material which gives them the authority to do so. Same for renewals; they refer specifically to what's being renewed. What's secret about it?

The government is certainly insolvent with regards to lawful money. It circumvents the Constitution, and I'm not particularly pleased about being beholden to a private central bank. I am not disputing the messy state of affairs, or that one can withdraw from FICA, which would degrade their game.

I'm simply concerned about parroting Emergencies, which do not exist, and I question the "copy" of the federal government as is often said to have been made in 1871. If bypassing the Constitution resembles Emergency behavior, but there's nothing that specifically authorizes this, then they are simply breaking the law. If our astute overlords would never do that, then there is some other law involved, and that would be what we need to address.

Emergency banking powers have been recently used--against Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran. How it may have been considered a "time of war", or a threat to national security, I don't know, but it's neither a secret, nor something that lasts more than a year without renewal.

[shaberon]

Another example: martial law. You would be correct to complain that in 2007 a law was passed granting the president some broad authority using the military for a domestic police force.

Someone else complained, a few senators, as this walked all over Posse Comitatus. In 2008 it was revised (Public Law 110-181 sec. 1068) that this power only applies when a state is unable to handle the situation. Now, while that may leave some kind of gray area, it also means that the president cannot declare emergencies and send in troops anywhere on a whim.