CHAPTER EIGHT A HOUSE FOR FREE: Fruit From a Poisonous Tree by Mel Stamper

 

CHAPTER EIGHT

A HOUSE FOR FREE

143

144 􏰀 Fruit from a Poisonous Tree

The same fraud used for Mortgages
The subject of money is a complex one and a subject that directly effects

all of our lives, from the cradle to the grave. Home ownership is one of the American dreams that we have all sought but few will ever truly achieve. The following action at law concerned the Federal Reserve Notes and that relationship as equal consideration for the purposes of a binding contract as related to a home mortgage. This knowledgeable litigant won his home from the bank. Enjoy the story.

The following is the Memorandum of Law submitted by Judge Mahoney in that case. It should have the effect of a cold water shower to your intellect and a sobering realization of the gigantic fraud that has been fostered on the American people for the past eighty-six years. This case cannot be used as precedent, as the Supreme Court of Minnesota has reversed it, not because the judge was wrong (they did not comment on his analysis of the law), but because, they said, his court did not have jurisdiction. They were, in my opinion, attempting to save this evil banking system from collapse.

Judges are not permitted to make a judgment if that judgment would create chaos in society. The Supreme Court of Minnesota, in reversing this decision, was merely maintaining the status quo – We the people as slaves and the bankers as the masters. Anything else would be chaos as far as the government and bankers are concerned.

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN JUSTICE COURT COUNTY OF SCOTT TOWNSHIP OF CREDIT RIVER

MARTIN V. MAHONEY, JUSTICE

FIRST BANK OF MONTGOMERY,
Plaintiff, CASE NO: 19144

vs. JUDGMENT AND DECREE

Jerome Daly,
Defendant. _________________________/

The above entitled action came on before the Court and a Jury of 12 on December 7, 1968, at 10:00 a.m. Plaintiff appeared by its President Lawrence V. Morgan and was represented by its Counsel Theodore R. Mellby. Defendant appeared on his own behalf.

A jury of Talesmen were called, impaneled and sworn to try the issues in this Case. Lawrence V. Morgan was the only witness called for Plaintiff and Defendant testified as the only witness in his own behalf.

Plaintiff brought this as a Common Law action for the recovery of the possession of lot 19, Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minn. Plaintiff claimed titled to the Real Property in question by foreclosure of a Note and Mortgage Deed dated May 8, 1964, which Plaintiff claimed was in default at the time foreclosure proceedings were started.

Defendant appeared and answered that the Plaintiff created the money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry as the legal failure of consideration for the Mortgage Deed and alleged that the Sheriff ’s sale passed no title to Plaintiff.

The issues tried to the jury were whether there was a lawful consideration and whether Defendant had waived his rights to complain about the consideration having paid on the note for almost 3 years.

Mr. Morgan admitted that all of the money or credit which was used as a consideration was created upon their books, that this was standard banking practice exercised by their bank in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, another private bank, further that he knew of no United States Statute of Law that gave the Plaintiff the authority to do this. Plaintiff

Mel Stamper

􏰀 145

146 􏰀 Fruit from a Poisonous Tree

further claimed that Defendant by using the ledger book created credit and by paying on the Note and Mortgage waived any right to complain about the consideration and that Defendant was estopped from doing so.

At 12:15 on December 7, 1968, the Jury returned a unanimous verdict for the Defendant.

Now therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State Minnesota not inconsistent therewith;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:

1. That Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the possession of lot 19, Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minnesota, according to the Plat thereof on file in the Register of Deeds office.

2. That because of failure of a lawful consideration the Note and Mortgage dated May 8, 1964, are null and void.

3. That the Sheriff’s sale of the above-described premises held on June 26, 1967, is null and void, of no effect.

4. That Plaintiff has no right, title or interest in said premises or lien thereon, as is above described.

5. That any provision in the Minnesota Constitution and any Minnesota Statute limiting the Jurisdiction of this Court is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and to the Bill of Rights of the Minnesota Constitution and is null and void and that this Court has Jurisdiction to render complete Justice in this Cause.

6. That Defendant is awarded costs in the sum of $75.00 and execution is hereby issued therefore.

7. A 10 day stay is granted.

8. The following memorandum and any supplemental memorandum

   made and filed by this Court in support of this judgment is hereby made a part hereof by reference.

Dated December 9, 1968

BY THE COURT

MARTIN V. MAHONEY JUSTICE OF THE PEACE CREDIT RIVER TOWNSHIP SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA Scott County, Minnesota

Mel Stamper 􏰀 147 MEMORANDUM

The issues in this case were simple. There was no material dispute on the facts for the Jury to resolve.

Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of their interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire $14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they credited it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law of Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the note. See Anheuser Busch Brewing Co. v. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. 46 N.W. 558. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing.

Even if defendant could be charged with waiver or estoppel, as a matter of Law this is no defense to the plaintiff. The Law leaves wrongdoers where it finds them. See sections 50, 51, and 52 of Am Jur 2d “Actions” on page 584 – “no action will lie to recover on a claim based upon, or in any manner depending upon, a fraudulent, illegal, or immoral transaction or contract to which plaintiff was a party.

Plaintiff ’s act of creating credit is not authorized by the Constitution and Laws of the United States, is unconstitutional and void, and is not lawful consideration in the eyes of the Law to support any thing or upon which any lawful rights can be built.

Nothing in the Constitution of the United States limits the jurisdiction of this Court, which is one of original Jurisdiction with right of trial by Jury guaranteed. This is a Common Law Action. Minnesota cannot limit or impair the power of this Court to render Complete Justice between the parties. Any provisions in the Constitution and laws of Minnesota which attempt to do so are repugnant to the Constitution for the United States and void. No question as to the Jurisdiction of this Court was raised by either party at the trial. Both parties were given complete liberty to submit any and all facts and law to the Jury; at least in so far as they saw fit.

No complaint was made by Plaintiff that Plaintiff did not receive a fair trial. From the admissions made by Mr. Morgan the path of duty was made direct and clear for the Jury. Their Verdict could not reasonably have been otherwise. Justice was rendered completely and without denial, promptly and

148 􏰀 Fruit from a Poisonous Tree
without delay, freely and without purchase, conformable to the laws in this

Court on December 7, 1968.

BY THE COURT December 9, 1968

MARTIN V. MAHONEY JUSTICE OF THE PEACE CREDIT RIVER TOWNSHIP SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA

Note: It has never been doubted that a Note given on a Consideration which is prohibited by law is void. It has been determined, independent of Acts of Congress, that sailing under the license of an enemy is illegal. The emission of Bills of Credit upon the books of these private Corporations, for the purposes of private gain is not warranted by the Constitution of the United States and is unlawful. See Craig v. Mo. 4 Peters Reports 912, This Court can tread only that path which is marked out by duty. M.V.M.

Judge Martin Mahoney’s decision was as follows:

“For the Justice fees, the First National Bank deposited with the Clerk of the District Court the two Federal Reserve Notes. The Clerk tendered the Notes to me. My sworn duty compelled me to refuse the tender. This is contrary to the Constitution of the United States. The States have no power to make bank notes a legal tender. See American Jurist on Money, sec. 13. Only gold and silver coin is a lawful tender.”

“Bank Notes are a good tender as money unless specifically objected to. Their consent and usage is based upon the convertibility of such notes to coin at the pleasure of the holder upon presentation to the bank for redemption. When the inability of a bank to redeem its notes is openly avowed they instantly lose their character as money and their circulation as currency ceases. (See 36 Am. Jur. on Money, Section 9).

“There is no lawful consideration for these Federal Reserve Notes to circulate as money. The banks actually obtained these notes for cost of printing. There is no lawful consideration for said Notes.

“A lawful consideration must exist for a Note. As a matter of fact, the “Notes” are not Notes at all, as they contain no promise to pay. (See 17 American Jurist section 85, 215)

“The activity of the Federal Reserve Banks of Minnesota, San Francisco and the First National Bank of Montgomery is contrary to public policy and

contrary to the Constitution of the United States and constitutes an unlawful creation of money, credit and the obtaining of money and credit for no valuable consideration. Activity of said banks in creating money and credit is not warranted by the Constitution of the United States.

“The Federal Reserve Banks and National Banks exercise an exclusive monopoly and privilege of creating credit and issuing their Notes at the expense of the public, which does not receive a fair equivalent. This scheme is obliquely designed for the benefit of an idle monopoly to rob, blackmail, and oppress the producers of wealth.

“The Federal Reserve Act and the National Bank Act is in their operation and effect contrary to the whole letter and spirit of the Constitution of the United States, for they confer an unlawful and unnecessary power on private parties; they hold all of our fellow citizens in dependence; they are subversive to the rights and liberation of the people.

“These Acts have defiled the lawfully constituted Government of the United States. The Federal Reserve Act and the National Banking Act are not necessary and proper for carrying into execution the legislative powers granted to Congress or any other powers vested in the Government of the United States, but, on the contrary, are subversive to the rights of the People in their rights to life, liberty, and property. (See Section 462 of Title 31 U. S. Code).

“The meaning of the Constitutional provision, ‘NO STATE SHALL make any Thing but Gold and Silver Coin a tender in payment of debts’ is direct, clear, unambiguous and without any qualification. This Court is without authority to interpolate any exception. My duty is simply to execute it, as written, and to pronounce the legal result. From an examination of the case of Edwards v. Kearsey, 96 U.S. 595, the Federal Reserve Notes (fiat money), which are attempted to be made a legal tender, are exactly what the authors of the Constitution of the United States intend to prohibit. No State can make these Notes a legal tender. Congress is incompetent to authorize a State to make the Notes a legal tender. For the effect of binding Constitution provisions see Cooke v. Iverson. This fraudulent Federal Reserve System and National Banking System has impaired the obligation of Contract, promoted disrespect for the Constitution and Law and has shaken society to its foundations. (See 96 U.S. Code 595 and 108 M 388 and 63 M 147)

“Title 31, U.S. Code, Section 432, is in direct conflict with the Constitution insofar, at least, that it attempts to make Federal Reserve Notes a Legal Tender. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Section 462 of Title 31 is not a law which is made in pursuance of the Constitution. It is unconstitutional and void, and I so hold. Therefore, the two Federal Reserve Notes are null and void for any lawful purpose in so far as this case is

Mel Stamper 􏰀 149

150 􏰀 Fruit from a Poisonous Tree

concerned and are not a valid deposit of $2.00 with the Clerk of the District Court for the purpose of effecting an Appeal from this Court to the District Court.

“However, there is a second ground of invalidity of these Federal Reserve Notes previously discussed and that is that the Notes are invalid because on no theory are they based upon a valid, adequate or lawful consideration.

“At the hearing scheduled for January 22, 1969, at 7:00 p.m., Mr. Morgan, nor anyone else from or represent the Bank, attended to aid the Court in making a correct determination.

“Mr. Morgan appeared at the trial on December 7, 1969, he appeared as a witness to be candid, open, direct, experienced and truthful. He testified to 20 years of experience with the Bank of America in Los Angeles, the Marquette National Bank of Minnesota and the First National Bank of Minnesota. He seemed to be familiar with the operation of the Federal Reserve System. He freely admitted that his Bank created all of the money and credit upon its books with which it acquired the Note and Mortgage of May 8, 1964. The credit first came into existence when the Bank created it upon its books. Further, he freely admitted that no United States Law gave the Bank the authority to do this. There was obviously no lawful consideration for the Note. The Bank parted with absolutely nothing except a little ink. In this case the evidence was on January 22, 1969, that the Federal Reserve Banks obtain the Notes for the cost of the printing only. This seems to be conferred by Title 12 USC, Section 420. The cost is about 9/10ths of a cent per Note, regardless of the amount of the Note. The Federal Reserve Banks create all of the money and credit upon their books by bookkeeping entries by which they acquire United States and State Securities. The collateral required to obtain the Note is, by section 412 USC, Title 12, a deposit of a like amount of Bonds – Bonds which the Banks acquire by creating money and credit by bookkeeping entry.

“No rights can be acquired by fraud. The Federal Reserve Notes are acquired through the use of unconstitutional statutes and fraud.

“The Common Law requires a lawful consideration for any Contract or Note. These Notes are void for failure at a lawful consideration at Common Law, entirely apart from any Constitutional Considerations. Upon this ground, the Notes are ineffectual for any purpose. This seems to be the principal objection to paper fiat money and the cause of its depreciation and failure down through the ages. If allowed to continue, Federal Reserve Notes will meet the same fate. From the evidence introduced on January 22, 1969, this Court finds that as of March 18, 1968, all Gold and Silver backing is removed from Federal Reserve Notes.

“The law leaves wrongdoers where it finds them. See Amer. Jur. 2nd on Actions, Sections 50, 51 and 52.

“Slavery and all its incidents, including Peonage, thralldom and debt created by fraud is universally prohibited in the United States. This case represents but another refined form of Slavery by the Bankers. Their position is not supported by the Constitution of the United States. The People have spoken their will in terms which cannot be misunderstood. It is indispensable to the preservation of the Union and independence and liberties of the people that this Court adhere only to the mandates of the Constitution and administer it as it is written. I therefore hold these Notes in question void and not effectual for any purpose.”

January 30, 1969

BY THE COURT
/s/ Martin V. Mahoney
MARTIN V. MAHONEY JUSTICE OF THE PEACE CREDIT RIVER TOWNSHIP SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA

If we as a nation only had a few of these remarkable men in the judiciary we cannot even imagine the prosperity we would enjoy. Judge Mahoney died of mysterious causes several months after this decision.

The American People held as collateral

Why does there exist within the borders of the United States of America a system that appears to be predicated upon the enslavement of its citizens for the benefit of the favored few international bankers?

Perhaps we should revisit the time period of 1933 for the answer.

Perpetual Bankruptcy for America

Soon after the federal government’s departure from common law in 1938, the United States entered the Second World War. The League of Nations was re-instituted under the pretence of the “United Nations” (22 U.S.C.A. 287 et. seq.). The Bank for International Settlements was re-instituted under pretense

Mel Stamper 􏰀 151

152 􏰀 Fruit from a Poisonous Tree

of the Bretton Woods Agreement (60 Stat. 1401, 22 U.S·C·A. 286 et seq.) as the “International Monetary Fund” (The Fund) and the “International Bank For Reconstruction And Development” (The Bank).

The United States as a corporate body politic (artificial entity) emerged from World War II in worse economic condition than when it entered.

In 1950, again the US declared bankruptcy and “reorganization.” The reorganization is located in Title 5 of United States Code Annotated. The “explanation” at the beginning of 5 U.S.C.A. is immensely informative. The “Secretary of Treasury” was appointed as the “Receiver” in Bankruptcy. (Reorganization Plan No. 26. 5 U.S.C.A. §903, Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, page 5967.)

The United States subsequently and periodically filed further reorganizations. Conditions and situations worsened and Congress, having done what they were commanded not to do (Madison’s Notes, Constitutional Convention, August 16, 1787; Federalist Papers No.44), in 1965 passed the “Coinage Act,” completely debasing the Constitutional Coin (gold and silver, i.e. “dollar”). (18 U.S.C.A, §§331 and 332, U.S. vs. Marigold, 50 U.S. 560, 13 L.Ed. 257.)

At the signing of the Coinage Act on July 23, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson stated in his press release:

“When I have signed this bill before me, we will have made the first fundamental change in our coinage in 173 years. The Coinage Act of 1965 supersedes the Act of 1792. And that Act had the title: ‘An Act Establishing a Mint and Regulating the Coinage of the United States...’

“Now I will sign this bill to make the first change in our coinage system since the 18th Century. To those members of Congress who are here on this historic occasion, I want to assure you that in making this change from the 18th Century we have no idea of returning to it.”

It is important to take full cognizance of the fact that no Constitutional Amendment was ever obtained to fundamentally change, amend, abridge, or abolish the constitutional mandates, provisions, or prohibitions contained in the organic Constitution for the United States regarding our money. But due to internal and external pressures and divisions surrounding the Vietnam conflict, etc., the usurpation and breach of their constitutional mandate, Congress’ actions went basically unchallenged and unnoticed by the general public at large. They, the de jure people of the United States of America, that day, became “a wealthy man’s cannon fodder or cheap source of slave labor.” (Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars, TM-SW7905.1, pages 6-13, 56).

Congress is clearly mandated the power and authority to regulate and maintain true and inherent “value” of the Coin within the scope and authority of Article I, Section 8, Clauses 5 and 6, and Article I, Section 10,

Clause 1, of the ordained Constitution (1787). Further, Congress had a corresponding obligation to maintain gold and silver Coin and Foreign Coin at the necessary and proper “equal weights and measures” clause. (Public Law 97-289, 96 Stat. 1211.)

Those exercising the public offices of the Union States all knew such de facto transitions were unlawful and unauthorized. Regardless, they sanctioned, implemented, and enforced the complete destruction of the American people’s wealth. Inevitably resulting in destructive “governmental, social, industrial economic change” in the de jure States of the United States of America. (Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pages 5936, 5945; 31 U.S.C.A §314, 31 U.S.C.A·§321, and 31 U.S.C.A. §5112). Under the delusion that they may, lawmakers now as then, both directly and indirectly, continue to do with impunity what they are absolutely prohibited from doing. (Federalist Papers No. 44, Craig vs. Missouri, 4 Peters 903.)

The International Bankers and Corporations take control of America

In 1966, Congress being then as severely compromised by campaign contributions from banks and corporations as they are now, passed the “Federal Tax Lien Act” by which the entire taxing and monetary system, the “essential engine” (Federalist Papers No. 31), was placed under the Uniform Commercial Code. (Public Law 89-719, Legislative History, page 3722) The Uniform Commercial Code was promulgated by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, in collusion with the American Law Institute, for the benefit of banking and business interests. (Handbook Of The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, 1966, pages 152 and 153).

The United States became engaged in numerous conflicts, including Korea and the Vietnam, that were under the direction and control of the United Nations (22 U.S.C.A. §287 [d]), and Congress agreed to foot the bill. (22 U.S.C.A. §287 [i]). Not being able to honor their obligations, Congress re-hypothecated debt credit, openly and publicly dishonored and disavowed their “notes” and “obligations” at (12 U.S.C.A. §411), i.e., “Federal Reserve Notes” through Public Law 90-269, Section 2, 82 Stat. 50 (1968), to wit:

“Sec. 2. The first sentence of section 15 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 391) is amended by striking ‘and the funds provided in this Act for the redemption of Federal Reserve notes.’”

Mel Stamper 􏰀 153

154 􏰀 Fruit from a Poisonous Tree

Our Republic began to crumble. On March 28, 1970, President Richard M. Nixon issued Proclamation No. 3972, declaring an “emergency” because the postal employees struck against the de facto government for higher pay, due to inflation of the paper “bills of credit.” (Senate Report No. 93-549, page 596). President Nixon then placed the U.S. Postal Department under control of the “Department of Defense” (Department of the Army Field Manual, FM 41-10 [1969 ed].).

The Federal Reserve System’s reserve policy had been faltering for more than a decade, but the benchmark date of the collapse is put at August 15, 1971. On that day, President Nixon reversed U.S. international monetary policy by officially declaring the non-convertibility of the U.S. dollar (F.R.N.) into gold (Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, page 5937, and Senate Report No. 93-549, Foreword, Page III, Proclamation No. 4074, Page 597, 31 U.S.C.A. §314 and 31 U.S.C.A. §5112). There was simply no longer any gold left in Fort Knox with which to pay the country’s international debt to its foreign creditors. You know why? That chapter is coming up.

On September 21, 1973, Congress passed Public Law 93-110, amending the Bretton Woods Par Value Modification Act, 82 Stat. 116, 31 U.S.C.A. §449, and reiterated the “emergency” at 12 U.S.C.A. §95(a) and amended section 8 of the Bretton Woods Agreement Act of 1945 (22 U.S.C.A. §286 (f), which included “reports on foreign currency transactions.” (Also see: Executive Order No. 10033.) This Act further declared in section 2(b) that:

“No provision of any law in effect on the date of enactment of this Act, and no rule, regulation, or order under authority of any such law, may be construed to prohibit any person from purchasing, holding, selling, or otherwise dealing with gold.”

The United Nations: Good or Evil

On January 19, 1976, Congresswoman Marjorie S. Holt noted for the record a second “Declaration of Interdependence,” which clearly identified the UN as a “Communist” organization, the UN seeking both production and monetary control over the Union and the People, using the international organization (UN), by promoting the “One World Order.” (Congressional Record, January 19, 1976, Extension of Remarks. Also see 8 U.S.C.A. §1101(40), 50 U.S.C.A. §§781 and 783.)

Mel Stamper 􏰀 155 First the Federal Judges roll over for their 20 pieces of silver

Social and economic conditions steadily worsened as noted in the Complaint/Petition filed in the U.S. Court of Claims, Docket No. 41-76, on February 11, 1976, by 44 federal judges. Atkins, et al. vs. U.S. Atkins complained that:

“As a result of inflation, the compensation of federal judges has been substantially diminished each year since 1969, causing direct and continuing monetary harm to plaintiffs... The real value of the dollar decreased by approximately 34.5 percent from March 15, 1969, to October 1, 1975. As a result, plaintiffs have suffered an unconstitutional deprivation of earnings...” and in the prayer for relief claimed “damages for the constitutional violations enumerated above, measured as the diminution of his earnings for the entire period since March 9, 1969.”

It is quite apparent that the persons holding and enjoying offices of public trust, honor and/or profit knew of the emergency and emergent problem. They sought protection for themselves to the damage and injury of “We the People” and our children who were classified as “a club that has many other members who have no remedy.” Knowing that “heinous” acts had been committed, the judges stated that they (judges/lawyers) would not apply the law, nor would any substantive remedy be applied “until all of us (judges) are dead.”

Such persons fraudulently swore an oath to uphold, defend, and preserve the sovereignty of the Nation and the Republic States of the Union and the Constitution. They breached their duty to protect the Citizens and their posterity from fraud, imposition, avarice, and stealthy encroachment. Atkins et al. vs. U.S. 556 F.2d 1028, pages 1072, 1074; The Tempting of America, supra, pages 155-159; 5 U.S.C.A. §§5305 and 5335, Senate Report No. 93- 549, pages 69-71.) This is verified in Public Law No. 94-564, Legislative History, Page 5944, and states:

“Moving to a floating exchange rate for international commerce means private enterprise and not central governments bear the risk of currency fluctuations.”

Numerous serious debates were held in Congress, including but not limited to Tuesday, July 27, 1976, (Congressional Record – House, July 27, 1976), concerning the international financial institutions and operations. Representative Ron Paul, Chairman of the House Banking Committee, made numerous references to the true practices of the “international” financial institutions, including but not limited

156 􏰀 Fruit from a Poisonous Tree

to the conversion of $27,000,000 (27 million) in gold (today that’s $9.5 billion in FRNs factoring the price of gold at $352 per ounce), contributed by the United States as part of its “quota obligations” which the International Monetary Fund (Governor-Secretary of Treasury) sold (Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pages 5945 and 5946) under questionable terms and concessions. (Also see: The Ron Paul Money Book, (1991), by Ron Paul, Plantation Publishing, 837 W. Plantation, Clute, Texas 77531.)

Invisible Contracts you have with the Secretary of the Treasury for the use of the Federal Reserves private money

On October 28, 1977 the passage of Public Law 95-147, 91 Stat. 1227 declared most banking institutions, including State banks, to be under direction and control of the corporate “Governor” of the International Monetary Fund. (Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, page 5942, United States Government Manual, 1990/91, pages 480-481.) The Act further declared:

“(2) Section 10(a) of the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 (31 U.S.C. §822 a [b]) is amended by striking out the phrase ‘stabilizing the exchange value of the dollar’...”

“(c) The joint resolution entitled ‘Joint resolution to assure uniform values to the coins and currencies of the United States’, approved June 5, 1933, (31 U.S.C. §463) shall not apply to obligations issued on or after the date of enactment of this section.”

The international organizations, corporations, and associations could not pay and refused to pay their debts. They determined that they could pass the loss of their non-redeemable, non-current notes, bonds, and evidences of debt off onto others and thereby crown their fraud with success. (Letter from Department of Treasury, Russell L. Hunk, Assistant General Counsel (International Affairs), October 26, 1989, as recorded in the office of Clerk and Recorder, Baca County, Colorado, at Book 540 page 364). The de facto United States as Corporators, (22 U.S.C.A. §286 [e], et seq.) and “state” had declared “insolvency” (26 USC § 1651[g][1], Westfall vs. Bralev, 10 Ohio 188, 75 Am. Dec. 509, Adams vs. Richardson, 337 SW 2d 911; Ward vs. Smith, 7 Wall 447).

In 1980 Congress passed among other things Public Law 96-221, providing for the furtherance and expansion of the profligate re-hypothecated debt pyramid scheme and reduced the reserve requirements on “transaction

accounts” to a minimum of three percent (3%) to a maximum of (14%) percent. Institutions Deregulation And Monetary Control Act of 1980, Section 103[b][E][2].

And you thought it was money

“In the United States neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities. Intrinsically, a dollar bill is just a piece of paper. Deposits are merely book entries. Coins do have some intrinsic value as metal, but generally far less than their face amount...

“In the absence of legal reserve requirements, banks can build up deposits by increasing loans and investments so long as they keep enough currency on hand to redeem whatever amounts the holders of deposits want to convert into currency. This unique attribute of the banking business was discovered several centuries ago. At one time, bankers were merely middlemen. They made profit by accepting gold and coins brought to them for safekeeping and lending them to borrowers. But they soon found that the receipts they issued to depositors were being used as money since whoever held them could go to the banker and exchange them for metallic money.

“Then bankers discovered that they could make loans merely by giving borrowers their promise to pay (bank notes). In this way, banks began to create money. More notes could be issued than the gold and coin on hand because only a portion of the notes outstanding would be presented for payment at any one time. Enough metallic money had to be kept on hand, of course, to redeem whatever volume of notes was presented for payment.

“Transaction deposits are the modern counter-part of bank notes. It was a small step from printing notes to making book entries to the credit of borrowers which the borrowers, in turn, could ‘spend’ by writing checks, thereby, ‘printing their own money.’” – Modern Money Mechanics, A Workbook on Deposits, Currency and Bank Reserves, 1982 Rev. Ed., Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, P.O. box 834, Chicago, Illinois 60609, pages 3 and 4.)

An Old Cold War rages against the American people

Eighty-six years is in no way “temporary.” It’s a permanent state of “emergency” and was clearly instituted, formed, and engineered within the Union for the sole purpose of creating a constitutional dictatorship, all accomplished through gross usurpation and breach of legal duties and through

Mel Stamper 􏰀 157

158 􏰀 Fruit from a Poisonous Tree

the Presidents’ use of Executive Orders, on demand, of the international financial institutions, organizations, corporations, and associations, including the Federal Reserve, their “fiscal and depository agent” (22 U.S.C.A. § 286 (d). This profligate practice has led to such “emergency” legislation as the “Public Debt Limit-Balance Budget And Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985,” Public Law 99-177, etc.

The government, by becoming a Corporation (22 U.S.C.A. §286 [e]), lays down its sovereignty and takes on the mantle of a private citizen. It can exercise no power which is not derived from the corporate charter. (The Bank of the United States vs. Planters Bank of Georgia, 6 L. Ed. [9 Wheat] 244, U.S. vs. Burr, 309 U.S. 242.) The real party in interest is not the de jure “United States of America” or “State,” but “The Bank” and “The Fund”, (22 U.S.C.A 286 et seq.). The acts committed under fraud, force, and seizures are many times done under “letters of marque and reprisal,” i.e., “recapture,” (31 U.S.C.A §5323). Such principles as “fraud and justice never dwell together” (Wingate’s Maxims 680) and “a right of action cannot arise out of fraud” (Broom’s Maxims 297, 729; Cowper Reports 343; 5 Scott’s New Reports 558; 10 Mass. 276; 38 Fed. 800) are far too high a thought concept for these internationalists, as is “Due Process” or “Just Compensation” and Justice itself; forget about truth.

Will Rogers’ old saying, “There are men running governments who shouldn’t be allowed to play with matches,” is just as astute and accurate today as it was then.

The contrived “emergency” has created numerous abuses, usurpations, and abridgments of delegated Powers and Authority. As stated in Senate Report 93-549:

“Since March 9, 1993, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidential 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 statues 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, confers enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional process.

“Under the powers delegated by these statues, 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.” (Foreword, Page III)

The “Introduction” on page 1 begins with a phenomenal declaration:

“A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have in varying degrees been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency ...”

According to all my research of 16 American Jurisprudence, 2nd Ed., Sections 71 and 82, no emergency justifies a violation of any constitutional provision. Arguing the “Supremacy Clause” and “Separation of Powers” is clearly admitted in Senate Report No. 93-549; that abridgement has clearly occurred. We have all heard, on numerous occasions, statements in federal and state tribunals that Constitutional arguments are “immaterial” or “frivolous.” That is based upon the concealment, furtherance and compounding of fraud and “emergency” created and sustained by the “expatriated” aliens of the United Nations and its organizations, corporations, and associations. (Letter, Insight Magazine, February 18, 1991, page 7, Lowell L. Flanders, President, UN Staff Union, New York.) 8 U.S.C.A §1481 is one of the controlling statutes on expatriation, as is 22 U.S.C.A. §§§611, 612 and 613 and 50 USCA §781. This is where the Federal government gets jurisdiction over you because you have an invisible contract with the Secretary of the Treasury in the form of bank accounts, credit cards, Social Security participation, etc. Contract law is Equity/Admiralty jurisdiction, and the Constitution is of no use to you in those Courts.

CONSPIRACY THEORIES: DELUSIONAL OR REAL

Unlike the government, I permit my readership the right to determine for themselves whether or not there exists a conspiracy in this country. My views on the subject are totally irrelevant; you know on which side of the road I stand.

Where is the money?
Where does the money go that is paid into the IRS?

Mel Stamper 􏰀 159

160 􏰀 Fruit from a Poisonous Tree

It spends at least a year in what is called a “quad zero” account under an Individual Master File, after which time the Director of the IRS Center can apparently do whatever he wants with the money. It is sometimes dispersed under Treasury Order 91 (Rev. 1), May 12, 1986, which is a service agreement between the IRS and the Agency for International Development, AID. (UNITED NATIONS)