Living in liberty or Perpetual National Debt Incurred on by Rulers? Research #3

1 Comment


This is research #3 to voters that gives thought as to real impact that DEBT is having on the people and what the ramifications could pose in present and future living. What often does not make our media networks news, is how many other countries are protesting on the streets once its too late and economies bankrupted or people forced to live with austere measures which often trickle into less quality in food and products. All around the people tend to get way less for their money. For example, companies are taking out good ingredients (watered down or scraped out altogether) in order to make it inflation adjusted but then less effective. Has anyone noticed how many restaurants do not even place bread on table? Has anyone noticed how even beauty products no longer feel the same and good botanicals taken out by corporate headquarters
but still need to charge the same? How about the service price increases that many felt needed for adjustment but cut down on their clintele? How long could this go on? Until we are all on the streets with rags? How long before as its happening now we have regular families now begging for work on our street corners? Are we all waiting to be next, or should we do something about it now while we still have the time? Why is the DC establishment now contemplating going after savings and retirement plans? What next, our kids rooms piggy banks?
Please take note and notice the ramifications that all these debts will impose on us and our ability to keep Liberty.
Research material by Joyce R. drop box. (Retired attorney, concerned Citizen).
Many individuals have given their professional and limited time to help educate the public, some have fallen ill from the many catastrophies out there polluting our air, food and water so please take heed.

CONGRESS CLAIMS TO BE THE RULER OF THE NATION. THE SOVEREIGN.
THE NATIONAL DEBT BELONGS TO THEM
[when a nation goes bankrupt it loses it’s sovereignty]

The lenders have committed a hostile act against the people. They cannot expect a nation which has freed itself of a despotic regime to assume these odious debts, which are the personal debts of the ruler.

Refuse to Pay Government Debt Incurred for Unlawful and Oppressive Purposes … It Is the Personal Debt of Those Who Ordered It to Be Incurred

There is an established legal principle that people should not have to repay their government’s debt to the extent that it is incurred to launch aggressive wars or to oppress the people.
These “odious debts” are considered to be the personal debts of the tyrants who incurred them, rather than the country’s debt.

FOR CONGRESS TO INCUR DEBT FROM THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE AND THEN EXPECT THEM TO PAY IT BACK IS AN ACT OF PURE INSANITY.

The American people were declared to be the enemy of the bankers in 1933. They took our gold and gave us worthless paper instead. Congress did what the Constitution had forbidden them to do.
Now we are a heartbeat away from losing the entire Nation. Who’s the guilty party here? Should Congress be rewarded for their treason or hung for their treason?
If you, the American People are too afraid to do what must be done, you deserve everything you will get.

You have been sold into slavery by Congress to pay their debt to the bankers.
Congress is attempting to destroy the best medical treatment in the world and replace it with something not much better than vetinery medicine for the people, while they keep the best program in the world for themselves.
Soon you will find yourself working in one of the Trade Zones for next to nothing to make the bankers richer. Freedom will be nothing more than a memory. Do you remember what freedom is?
BEING ALLOWED TO VOTE FOR YOUR JAILER IS NOT FREEDOM.
Congress will continue to live like royalty while, we, the people are expected to live on the new international gulags they are creating for profit for their Masters, the international bankers.

When it is necessary to start selling body parts to keep the dollars flowing to the bankers will you, like sheep, comply when the letter comes in the mail telling you it’s your turn to donate?

THERE’S NOTHING FOR AMERICA TO OFFER THE BANKERS EXCEPT YOUR CHILDREN AND YOUR BODY PARTS.
THEY ALREADY HAVE EVERYTHING ELSE.
IF WE REFUSE TO OBEY MAYBE THEY WILL LEAVE.
WHAT DO WE HAVE TO LOSE?

CONGRESS IS OUR TRUE ENEMY. WHY ARE YOU STILL VOTING FOR THEM?
HAVEN’T YOU FINALLY REALIZED THEY DON’T SERVE US?
WHY IS MADAME PELOSI STILL FLYING IN HER PRIVATE PLANE PAID FOR WITH TAX DOLLARS WHEN WE ARE BANKRUPT?

HOW DO YOU DEFINE STUPID?
One word….. AMERICANS

WELCOME TO THE BANKERS PRIVATE GULAG, ONCE KNOWN AS THE REPUBLIC OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

You may think of me as crazy now. In the years to come you will remember me as a “prophet.”
It gives me no joy to know this.
What I really want is for my people, the AMERICAN PEOPLE, to have wonderful lives.
This you will have to do for yourselves. Yes, it involves danger, maybe even death. But remember these words….IT IS BETTER TO FIGHT AND DIE ON YOUR FEET TO END CORRUPTION AND REGAIN FREEDOM, THEN TO LIVE ON YOUR KNEES AS SLAVES.

IS THIS THE FUTURE YOU WANT YOUR CHILDREN TO LIVE IN?

OK….WE WON’T REBEL. LET’S DO SOMETHING ELSE THAT WILL HURT THE WOULD BE MASTERS JUST AS MUCH. LET’S RISE UP AND DECLARE WE REPUDIATE THEIR ODIOUS DEBT, start state banks, and to hell with the bankers and the traitors.

ODIOUS DEBT

Wikipedia gives a good overview of the principle:
In international law, [congress also gave us this: we live under the International Law Merchant] odious debt is a legal theory which holds that the national debt incurred by a regime for purposes that do not serve the best interests of the nation, such as wars of aggression, should not be enforceable. Such debts are thus considered by this doctrine to be personal debts of the regime that incurred them and not debts of the state. In some respects, THE CONCEPT IS ANALOGOUS TO THE INVALIDITY OF CONTRACTS SIGNED UNDER COERCION.

The doctrine was formalized in a 1927 treatise by Alexander Nahum Sack, a Russian émigré legal theorist, based upon 19th Century precedents including Mexico’s repudiation of debts incurred by Emperor Maximilian’s regime, and the denial by the United States of Cuban liability for debts incurred by the Spanish colonial regime. According to Sack:
When a despotic regime contracts a debt, not for the needs or in the interests of the state [or the people], but rather to strengthen itself, to suppress a popular insurrection, etc, this debt is odious for the people of the entire state. This debt does not bind the nation; it is a debt of the regime, a personal debt contracted by the ruler, and consequently it falls with the demise of the regime.

The reason why these odious debts cannot attach to the territory of the state is that they do not fulfill one of the conditions determining the lawfulness of State debts, namely that State debts must be incurred, and the proceeds used, for the needs and in the interests of the State.
Odious debts, contracted and utilized for purposes which, to the lenders’ knowledge, are contrary to the needs and the interests of the nation, are not binding on the nation – when it succeeds in overthrowing the government that contracted them – unless the debt is within the limits of real advantages that these debts might have afforded.

THE LENDERS HAVE COMMITTED A HOSTILE ACT AGAINST THE PEOPLE, they cannot expect a nation which has freed itself of a despotic regime to assume these odious debts, which are the personal debts of the ruler.

Well, it appears any hostile action we take will now be lawful. The people were declared to be enemies of the bankers 1n 1933. it’s time to make the imperfect war declared against us PERFECT.

ODIOUS DEBT IS A HOSTILE ACT AGAINST THE PEOPLE.
IT APPEARS THE BANKERS HAVE FIRED THE FIRST SHOT.

Patricia Adams, executive director of Probe International (an environmental and public policy advocacy organization in Canada), and author of Odious Debts: Loose Lending, Corruption, and the Third World’s Environmental Legacy, has stated that: by giving creditors an incentive to lend only for purposes that are transparent and NOT of public benefit, future tyrants will lose their ability to finance their armies, and thus the war on terror and the cause of world peace will be better served.

WE WOULD BE DOING THE LAWFUL THING.

Query:credit and commerce pledge
Such promises do not create contracts and are not legally binding. [the Government borrows money and pledges the credit of the United States, it is free to ignore that pledge and alter the terms of its obligations in case a later Congress finds their fulfillment inconvenient.]
[when the Government borrows money, the credit of the United States it is an illusory pledge.]

[illusory promise A promise that pledges nothing, because it is vague or because the promisor can choose whether or not to honor it. Such promises do not create contracts and are not legally binding.]

[While the Congress is under no duty to provide remedies through the courts, the contractual obligation still exists, and, despite infirmities of procedure, remains binding upon the conscience of the sovereign. Lynch v. United States, supra, pages 580, 582, of 292 U.S. 54 S.Ct. 840.]

HOW LONG HAVE WE THE PEOPLE BEEN TOLD WE ARE NOT THE SOVEREIGN? WELL, LET THEM EAT THEIR OWN WORDS NOW……
THIS IS THE DEBT OF THE SOVEREIGN!

CONGRESS GAVE AWAY THE PEOPLES GOLD!
CONGRESS BORROWED IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE AGAINST THE WISHES OF THE PEOPLE

CONGRESS TOOK US INTO WAR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE BANKERS

WHO IS THE REAL ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE?

PERRY v. UNITED STATES, 294 U.S. 330 (1935)
294 U.S. 330
PERRY v. UNITED STATES. No. 532.
Argued Jan. 10, 11, 1935.
Decided Feb. 18, 1935.
[294 U.S. 330, 333] Mr. John M. Perry, of New York City, for Perry.
[294 U.S. 330, 341] Messrs. Homer S. Cummings, Atty. Gen., and Angus D. MacLean, Asst. Sol. Gen., of Washington, D.C., for the United States.
[294 U.S. 330, 346]

There is no question as to the power of the Congress to regulate the value of money, that is, to establish a monetary system and thus to determine the currency of the country. The question is whether the Congress can use that power so as to invalidate the terms of the obligations which the Government has theretofore issued in the exercise of the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States. In attempted justification of the Joint Resolution in relation to the outstanding bonds of the United States, the Government argues that “earlier Congresses could not validly restrict the 73rd Congress from exercising its constitutional powers to regulate the value of money, borrow money, or regulate foreign and interstate commerce”; and, from this premise, the Government seems to deduce the proposition that when, with adequate authority, THE GOVERNMENT BORROWS MONEY AND PLEDGES THE CREDIT OF THE UNITED STATES, IT IS FREE TO IGNORE THAT PLEDGE AND ALTER THE TERMS OF ITS OBLIGATIONS IN CASE A LATER CONGRESS FINDS THEIR FULFILLMENT INCONVENIENT.
The Government’s contention thus raises a question of far greater importance than the particular claim of the plaintiff. On that reasoning, if the terms of the Government’s bond as to the standard of payment can be repudiated, it inevitably follows that the obligation as to the amount to be paid may also be repudiated. The contention necessarily imports that the Congress can disregard the obligations of the Government at its discretion and that, when the Government borrows money, the credit of the United States is an illusory pledge.
[illusory promise A promise that pledges nothing, because it is vague or because the promisor can choose whether or not to honor it. Such promises do not create contracts and are not legally binding.]

Bailment or delivery of Personal Property to a creditor as security for a debt or for the performance of an act.
Sometimes called bailment, pledges are a form of security to assure that a person will repay a debt or perform an act under contract. In a pledge one person temporarily gives possession of property to another party. Pledges are typically used in securing loans, pawning property for cash, and guaranteeing that contracted work will be done. Every pledge has three parts: two separate parties, a debt or obligation, and a contract of pledge. The law of pledges is quite old, but in contemporary U.S. law it is governed in most states by the provisions for Secured Transactions in article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code.

IF YOU DIDN’T CONTRACT FOR THE DEBT PERSONALLY, IT ISN’T YOURS.

Pledges are different from sales. In a sale both possession and ownership of property are permanently transferred to the buyer. In a pledge only possession passes to a second party. The first party retains ownership of the property in question, while the second party takes possession of the property until the terms of the contract are satisfied. The second party must also have a lien—or legal claim—upon the property in question. If the terms are not met, the second party can sell the property to satisfy the debt. Any excess profit from the sale must be paid to the debtor, or first party. But if the sale does not meet the amount of the debt, legal action may be necessary.
A contract of pledge specifies what is owed, the property that shall be used as a pledge, and conditions for satisfying the debt or obligation. In a simple example, John asks to borrow $500 from Mary. Mary decides first that John will have to pledge his stereo as security that he will repay the debt by a specific time. In law John is called the pledgor, and Mary the pledgee. The stereo is referred to as pledged property. As in any common pledge contract, possession of the pledged property is transferred to the pledgee. At the same time, however, ownership (or title) of the pledged property remains with the pledgor. John gives the stereo to Mary, but he still legally owns it. If John repays the debt under the contractual agreement, Mary must return the stereo. But if he fails to pay, she can sell it to satisfy his debt.
Pledged property must be in the possession of a pledgee. This can be accomplished in one of two ways. The property can be in the pledgee’s actual possession, meaning physical possession (for example, Mary keeps John’s stereo at her house). Otherwise, it can be in the constructive possession of the pledgee, meaning that the pledgee has some control over the property, which typically occurs when actual possession is
impossible. For example, a pledgee has constructive possession of the contents of a pledgor’s safety deposit box at a bank when the pledgor gives the pledgee the only keys to the box.
In pledges both parties have certain rights and liabilities. The contract of pledge represents only one set of these: the terms under which the debt or obligation will be fulfilled and the pledged property returned. On the one hand, the pledgor’s rights extend to the safekeeping and protection of his property while it is in possession of the pledgee. The property cannot be used without permission unless use is necessary for its preservation, such as exercising a live animal. Unauthorized use of the property is called conversion and may make the pledgee liable for damages; thus, Mary should not use John’s stereo while in possession of it.
For the pledgee, on the other hand, there is more than the duty to care for the pledgor’s property. The pledgee has the right to the possession and control of any income accruing during the period of the pledge, unless an agreement to the contrary exists. This income reduces the amount of the debt, and the pledgor must account for it to the pledgee. Additionally, the pledgee is entitled to be reimbursed for expenses incurred in retaining, caring for, and protecting the property. Finally, the pledgee need not remain a party to the contract of pledge indefinitely. She can sell or assign her interest under the contract of the pledge to a third party. However, the pledgee must notify the pledgor that the contract of pledge has been sold or reassigned; otherwise, she is guilty of conversion.
West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

pledge v. to deposit personal property as security for a personal loan of money. If the loan is not repaid when due, the personal property pledged shall be forfeit to the lender. The property is known as collateral. To pledge is the same as to pawn. 2) to promise to do something. (See: pawn)
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.

pledge (Binding promise), noun act of giving one’s word, agreement, assurance, attestation, avowal, avowance, commitment, compact, contract, covenant, guarantee, oath, obligation, promise, promissory oath, promissum, solemn declaration, solemn word, statement on oath, undertaking, vow, warranty, word, word of honor
________________________________________
pledge (Security), noun collateral, deposit, earnest, earnest payment, guarantee, installment, personal secuuity, pignus, real security, security, stake, stake money, token payment
Associated concepts: assignment, collateral security, pledge of securities, pledged personalty, pledged property, seeured transactions

pledge (Deposit), verb bond, give as a guarantee, give as security for a debt, give as security for an obligation, give as surety, give one’s signature, give security, guarantee, hypothecate, impignorate, indorse, insure, offer collateral, post, put in pawn, put up, stake

pledge (Promise the performance of), verb assert solemnly, assure, avow, be answerable for, become bound to, bind, bind oneself, commit oneself, contract an obligaaion, covenant, engage solemnly, engage to give, give a guarantee, give assurance, give one’s word, guarantee, make a promise, obligare, oppignerare, promise solemnly, take upon oneself, undertake, warrant, vow
________________________________________
See also: accountability, adduce, adjuration, agree, agreement, allegiance, assurance, assure, avouch, avow, bail, bear, bind, binder, bond, charge, cloud, commitment, compact, contract, covenant, coverage, deal, debenture, declaration, deposit, due, duty, guarantee, guaranty, hostage, hypothecation, incumbrance, insurance, lien, loan, mortgage, oath, obligate, obligation, pact, pawn, profess, profession, promise, responsibility, specialty, stipulate, subscribe, undertake, undertaking, underwrite, vouch, vow, warrant, warranty
Burton’s Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
________________________________________
PLEDGE, contracts. He who becomes security for another, and, in this sense, every one who becomes bail for another is a pledge. 4 Inst. 180 Com. Dig. B. See Pledges.

U.S. Supreme Court
PERRY v. UNITED STATES, 294 U.S. 330 (1935)
294 U.S. 330
PERRY
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 532.

Argued Jan. 10, 11, 1935.
Decided Feb. 18, 1935.
[294 U.S. 330, 333] Mr. John M. Perry, of New York City, for Perry.
[294 U.S. 330, 341] Messrs. Homer S. Cummings, Atty. Gen., and Angus D. MacLean, Asst. Sol. Gen., of Washington, D.C., for the United States.
[294 U.S. 330, 346]
Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.
The certificate from the Court of Claims shows the following facts:
Plaintiff brought suit as the owner of an obligation of the United States for $10,000, known as ‘Fourth Liberty Loan
4 1/4% Gold Bond of 1933- 1938.’ This bond was issued pursuant to the Act of September 24, 1917, 1 et seq. (40 Stat. 288), as amended, and Treasury Department circular No. 121 dated September 28, 1918. The bond [294 U.S. 330, 347] provided: ‘The principal and interest hereof are payable in United States gold coin of the present standard of value.’
Plaintiff alleged in his petition that at the time the bond was issued, and when he acquired it, ‘a dollar in gold consisted of 25.8 grains of gold .9 fine’; that the bond was called for redemption on April 15, 1934, and, on May 24, 1934, was presented for payment; that plaintiff demanded its redemption ‘by the payment of 10,000 gold dollars each containing 25.8 grains of gold .9 fine’; that defendant refused to comply with that demand; and that plaintiff then demanded ‘258,000 grains of gold . 9 fine, or gold of equivalent value of any fineness, or 16,931.25 gold dollars each containing 15 5/21 grains of gold .9 fine, or 16,931.25 dollars in legal tender currency’; that defendant refused to redeem the bond ‘except by the payment of 10,000 dollars in legal tender currency’; that these refusals were based on the Joint Resolution of the Congress of June 5, 1933, 48 Stat. 113 (31 USCA 462, 463), but that this enactment was unconstitutional, as it operated to deprive plaintiff of his property without due process of law; and that, by this action of defendant, he was damaged ‘in the sum of $16,931.25, the value of defendant’s obligation,’ for which, with interest, plaintiff demanded judgment.
Defendant demurred upon the ground that the petition did not state a cause of action against the United States.
The Court of Claims has certified the following questions:
‘1. Is the claimant, being the holder and owner of a Fourth Liberty Loan 4 1/4 bond of the United States, of the principal amount of $10,000, issued in 1918, which was payable on and after April 15, 1934, and which bond contained a clause that the principal is ‘payable in United States gold coin of the present standard of value’, entitled to receive from the United States an amount in legal tender currency in excess of the face amount of the bond? [294 U.S. 330, 348]
‘2. Is the United States, as obligor in a Fourth Liberty Loan 4 1/4% gold bond, Series of 1933-1938, as stated in Question One liable to respond in damages in a suit in the Court of Claims on such bond as an express contract, by reason of the change in or impossibility of performance in accordance with the tenor thereof, due to the provisions of Public Resolution No. 10, 73rd Congress, abrogating the gold clause in all obligations?’
First. The Import of the Obligation. The bond in suit differs from an obligation of private parties, or of states or municipalities, whose contracts are necessarily made in subjection to the dominant power of the Congress. Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 294 U.S. 240 , 55 S.Ct. 407, decided this day. The bond now before us is an obligation of the United States. The terms of the bond are explicit. They were not only expressed in the bond itself, but they were definitely prescribed by the Congress. The Act of September 24, 1917, both in its original and amended form, authorized the moneys to be borrowed, and the bonds to be issued, ‘on the credit of the United States,’ in order to meet expenditures needed ‘for the national security and defense and other public purposes authorized by law.’ Section 1, 40 Stat. 288, as amended by Act April 4, 1918, 1, 40 Stat. 503, 31 USCA 752. The circular of the Treasury Department of September 28, 1918, to which the bond refers ‘for a statement of the further rights of the holders of bonds of said series,’ also provided that the principal and interest ‘are payable in United States gold coin of the present standard of value.’
This obligation must be fairly construed. The ‘present standard of value’ stood in contradistinction to a lower standard of value. The promise obviously was intended to afford protection against loss. That protection was sought to be secured by setting up a standard or measure of the government’s obligation. We think that the reasonable import of the promise is that it was intended [294 U.S. 330, 349] to assure one who lent his money to the government and took its bond that he would not suffer loss through depreciation in the medium of payment.
The government states in its brief that the total unmatured interest- bearing obligations of the United States outstanding on May 31, 1933 ( which it is understood contained a ‘gold clause’ substantially the same as that of the bond in suit), amounted to about twenty-one billions of dollars. From statements at the bar, it appears that this amount has been reduced to approximately twelve billions at the present time, and that during the intervening period the public debt of the United States has risen some seven billions (making a total of approximately twenty-eight billions five hundred millions) by the issue of some sixteen billions five hundred millions of dollars ‘of non-gold-clause obligations.’
Second. The Binding Quality of the Obligation. The question is necessarily presented whether the Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933, 48 Stat. 113 (31 USCA 462, 463), is a valid enactment so far as it applies to the obligations of the United States. The resolution declared that provisions requiring ‘payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency’ were ‘against public policy,’ and provided that ‘every obligation, heretofore or hereafter incurred, whether or not any such provision is contained therein,’ shall be discharged ‘upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any coin or currency which at the time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts.’ This enactment was expressly extended to obligations of the United States and provisions for payment in gold, ‘contained in any law authorizing obligations to be issued by or under authority of the United States,’ were repealed. 1 Section 1(a), 31 USCA 463(a). [294 U.S. 330, 350] There is no question as to the power of the Congress to regulate the value of money: that is, to establish a monetary system and thus to determine the currency of the country. The question is whether the Congress can use that power so as to invalidate the terms of the obligations which the government has theretofore issued in the exercise of the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States. In attempted justification of the Joint Resolution in relation to the outstanding bonds of the United States, the government argues that ‘earlier Congresses could not validly restrict the 73rd Congress from exercising its constitutional powers to regulate the value of money, borrow money, or regulate foreign and interstate commerce’; and, from this premise, the government seems to deduce the proposition that when, with adequate authority, the government borrows money and pledges the credit of the United States, it is free to ignore that pledge and alter the terms of its obligations in case a later Congress finds their fulfillment inconvenient. The government’s contention thus raises a question of far greater importance than the particular claim of the plaintiff. On that reasoning, if the terms of the government’s bond as to the standard of payment can be repudiated, it inevitably follows that the obligation as to the amount to be paid may also be repudiated. The contention necessarily imports that the Congress can disregard the obligations of the government at its discretion, and that, when the government borrows money, the credit of the United States is an illusory pledge.
We do not so read the Constitution. There is a clear distinction between the power of the Congress to control or interdict the contracts of private parties when they interfere with the exercise of its constitutional authority [294 U.S. 330, 351] and the power of the Congress to alter or repudiate the substance of its own engagements when it has borrowed money under the authority which the Constitution confers. In authorizing the Congress to borrow money, the Constitution empowers the Congress to fix the amount to be borrowed and the terms of payment. By virtue of the power to borrow money ‘on the credit of the United States,’ the Congress is authorized to pledge that credit as an assurance of payment as stipulated, as the highest assurance the government can give, its plighted faith. To say that the Congress may withdraw or ignore that pledge is to assume that the Constitution contemplates a vain promise; a pledge having no other sanction than the pleasure and convenience of the pledgor. This Court has given no sanction to such a conception of the obligations of our government.
The binding quality of the obligations of the government was considered in the Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U.S. 700, 718 , 719 S.. The question before the Court in those cases was whether certain action was warranted by a reservation to the Congress of the right to amend the charter of a railroad company. While the particular action was sustained under this right of amendment, the Court took occasion to state emphatically the obligatory character of the contracts of the United States. The Court said: ‘The United States are as much bound by their contracts as are individuals. If they repudiate their obligations, it is as much repudiation, with all the wrong and reproach that term implies, as it would be if the repudiator had been a State or a municipality or a citizen.’ 2 [294 U.S. 330, 352] When the United States, with constitutional authority, makes contracts, it has rights and incurs responsibilities similar to those of individuals who are parties to such instruments. There is no difference, said the Court in United States v. Bank of the Metropolis, 15 Pet. 377, 392, except that the United States cannot be sued without its consent. See, also, The Floyd Acceptances, 7 Wall. 666, 675; Cooke v. United States, 91 U.S. 389 , 396. In Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571, 580 , 54 S.Ct. 840, 844, with respect to an attempted abrogation by the Act of March 20, 1933, 17, 48 Stat. 8, 11 (38 USCA 717), of certain outstanding war risk insurance policies, which were contracts of the United States, the Court quoted with approval the statement in the Sinking Fund Cases, supra, and said: ‘Punctilious fulfillment of contractual obligations is essential to the maintenance of the credit of public as well as private debtors. No doubt there was in March, 1933, great need of economy. In the administration of all government business economy had become urgent because of lessened revenues and the heavy obligations to be issued in the hope of relieving widespread distress. Congress was free to reduce gratuities deemed excessive. But Congress was without power to reduce expenditures by abrogating contractual obligations of the United States. To abrogate contracts, in the attempt to lessen government expenditure, would [294 U.S. 330, 353] be not the practice of economy, but an act of repudiation.’
The argument in favor of the Joint Resolution, as applied to government bonds, is in substance that the government cannot by contract restrict the exercise of a sovereign power. But the right to make binding obligations is a competence attaching to sovereignty. 3 In the United States, sovereignty resides in the people who act through the organs established by the Constitution. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, 471; Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators, 3 Dall. 54, 93; McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 404, 405; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 , 6 S.Ct. 1064. The Congress as the instrumentality of sovereignty is endowed with certain powers to be exerted on behalf of the people in the manner and with the effect the Constitution ordains. The Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the people to override their will as thus declared. The powers conferred upon the Congress are harmonious. The Constitution gives to the Congress the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States, an unqualified power, a power vital to the government, upon which in an extremity its very life may depend. The binding quality of the promise of the United States is of the essence of the credit which is so pledged. Having this power to authorize the issue of definite obligations for the payment of money borrowed, the Congress has not been vested with authority to alter or destroy those obli[294 U.S. 330, 354]gations. The fact that the United States may not be sued without its consent is a matter of procedure which does not affect the legal and binding character of its contracts. While the Congress is under no duty to provide remedies through the courts, the contractual obligation still exists, and, despite infirmities of procedure, remains binding upon the conscience of the sovereign. Lynch v. United States, supra, pages 580, 582, of 292 U.S. 54 S.Ct. 840.

The courts have stated over and over again only the corporate united states government is “sovereign.’
It’s their debt…..they are just a private for profit corporation working to serve the bankers.
Are they bankrupt now? Too bad.

MAKE FINANCIAL SLAVERY IN THIS COUNTRY A DEAD ISSUE. PLACE THE DEBT WHERE IT BELONGS….ON CONGRESS.

They can have their debt, their private corporate citizenship and their private law.
They offer nothing to the people but oppression, debt, and financial servitude in perpetuity. To add insult to injury, they want to give our nation away.
It’s time for a dissolution.
It’s time to take back our labor, liberty, life and our Country and restore Constitutional Government.

IT’S NOT UNLAWFUL. IT’S MANDATORY!

Citizen’s Rights to be concerned About Nation.

Leave a comment

It does not take a rocket scientist to note that our Nation seems to be coming under attack at all fronts- economic, political, social and health. Legislation was there to protect the people and their property but today it is being used to take away liberties and property. In other words the law has been perverted and used today to take away all aspects of our humanity. This past few years we have lost our rights to clean food under food bill S 510, water with the so called water bill (Clean water Act) which gave the right of the no longer representative of the people so called governing system to control even the water falling from the sky as rain which in some states one could be cited for even collecting water in a bucket. The irony is that even that water may now be contaminated via the radiation coming from the Japan nuclear/tsunami/disaster which as of late there seems to be one disaster after the other destroying sovereign populations. One would suspect so many demise’s as an attempt to create an order out of chaos in that of destroying local and national economies in order to create the much desired One World Government that the few so much desire and have been planning since after WWII. The United Nations stemmed from the League of Nations after WWII both of which came from big $$ financial planners and inimical interests (funded to profit from both sides of the war) that to this day wish to own the world and all that lives on the planet. The debt of course in the financial system can never be repaid for that would be almost impossible so citizens worldwide become debtors that eventually may over-burden the system and those at the very top have reason to worry for the bubble eventually will burst for real productivity is what drives the market NOT wishful thinking, electronically produced money not backed by gold (easier for them to spend), derivatives, toxic swaps or corporations 24/7 calamities stemming out from their greed, corruption and just plain wish to control people & markets regardless of the consequences. Eventually the problem with how pension funds get paid when coffers may be empty or how social security will be paid when so many in US have reached an age to collect their well deserved retirements which they paid over the years but funds not there, so what is the solution, population control? why so many altered genetics even in our food supply which causes possible organ damage? Silence implies consent and quite frankly there are responsible ways to deal with problems and yes it is our duty to protect our NATION and our bodies from harm and from abuse.

Coming Together as a Nation

Enough evidence by citizen journalist’s worldwide is showing abuse, planning and gross negligence of power players delivering fake news, profiteering and plunder of others economies and even right here in the US a weather monitor station owned by inimical interests which by their ownership and foreign ties pose a threat to the well being of the Citizens of the United States.
Now there is a lot of concern for the State of Tennessee and flooding occuring all over our southern States which are the heartland of America since these have been transportation hubs for the United States and farmland. Citizens must be on the look-out for any unsual activity and be on the watch for your land, property and economic vitality. There seems to be general efforts via so many calamities as of late in destroying or dismantling of our economy and land. Citizens have the right to protect their land and health; especially with the ramifications of the existing radiation coming out into the atmosphere from Japan which could eventually contaminate our populations, crops and or food supply. The course of events are extremely unsual and each with huge ramifications to health, economy and nation’s independence. Be alert and pray.