PJ 105
CHAPTER 15
GOLD CERTIFICATE HISTORY LESSON
by Ronn Jackson
Editor's note: While Ronn Jackson considers this an "addendum" to his BULLETIN #19 it is actually a down-to-earth, historical teaching piece on the subject of Gold Certificates and other Government financial obligations which are so much the central subject of this week's CONTACT.
BULLETIN #19 (Addendum)
There is a great deal of confusion existing about obligations issued by the United States Government. I'm going to explain those certificates, the purpose of them, and how and what we, as citizens, can expect as a result of the Government's actions on those certificates.
First, the practice of issuing government obligations started as a result of our Government wanting to do something without having the money to do it, and started as early as the first legislature.
The first obligations issued had significant impact on the lives of our citizens then, and what the Government learned then was of the apathy that existed within the populace. People didn't care. As long as what the Government did, did not affect them as individuals at that particular time, forget it. (Do you recognize anything going on now that is similar?)
Even though those actions, by comparison, meant little compared to now, what those actions did were to establish a pattern and habits that continue to this very day.
The certificates that I am referring to are of two individual types. The first were those issued by the Treasury of the United States, encumbering the Government and, therefore, the States and the people. The second were those issued by and after December 26, 1913 by the Federal Reserve System.
Before I can continue I must give you definitions as contained in Title 28 USC so that you can fully understand what I'm saying about the actions of the Government. Remember these definitions are those of the Government, only used every day by Government for and primarily against you-the-uninformed-but-thinkingly-knowledgeable citizens.
Some Definitions. Definition #1: The United States of America. Their definition is: the sovereign 50 Union States. Definition #2: United States. Their definition is: Federal Territory only; i.e., American Samoa, Washington, D.C., U.S. Virgin Islands, any seaport, military reservation, U.S. courthouse or government federal office of any kind. In other words, two separate countries do exist by definition of our law. Definition #3: Positive Law. Their definition is: Laws passed by the Federal Government that comply with the Constitution. These laws apply to both the United States of America and the United States. Definition #4: Non-Positive Law. Their definition is: Laws passed by the Federal Government that do not comply to the Constitution and are only applicable to the Federal United States, not to the United States of America (but implied by our national political leaders that all laws do apply, whether Constitutional or not). For example: the Brady Bill. The wording uses the term United States, not the United States of America, because the bill is in conflict with Articles 2, 5 and 10 of the Constitution and is only applicable to the Federal Nation, not to the entire Country. Definition #5: Acts of Congress. Their definition is: Laws enacted by Congress and signed by the Executive Branch of Government. These acts can apply to both the United States of America and the United States if they comply to the Constitution. If they do not, those acts only apply to the Federal Territory, the United States, not to we-as-citizens of the sovereign 50 states, which reside in the United States of America.
"Acts of Congress that you may be familiar with that only apply to the Federal United States but have been adhesioned to and by you that only apply to the Federal Territory are: The Federal Reserve Act of 1913; the Social Security Act; the Gold Reserve Act of 1934. to mention only a few. In other words all laws that do not conform to the Constitution, only apply to Federal Territory and any person who implies anything different is guilty of actionable fraud and is guilty of treason to the Constitution no matter whether the party's title is President. Congressman or anyone in a position of enforcement of any unconstitutional law."
Government on a daily basis (Federal), that exceeds its jurisdiction as the United States Government, is a Federal Government not a national government. Now, how do those definitions apply to the issues and the existence of those certificates that I refer to? Government is a monopoly. And as an entity, in order to enlarge itself and grow, it must set an example of conforming to all laws and to the Constitution, or make you and I believe that they are.
When Federal laws are passed and signed they are placed in one of the 50 United States code books to give the appearance of conforming to the law of the land, the Constitution. The English language is manipulated without you or the judicial system being any the wiser. When law is encoded unto the reference books those responsible do "two tiny, almost imperceptible items". First, the two words AND and ANY are switched as the sentence structure requires; and secondly, on non-positive law, the singular tense, the United States, is changed to the plural tense to infer that the United States of America and the United States have the same meaning. They do not, according to the Government's own definitions.
You were going to say: Do our law-makers know of this practice? The majority of them are members of the Bar Association. You draw your own conclusions and look at the earnings of many attorneys in this country. Any individual who is a part of any organization which is self-governing and self-regulating such as the ABA, is part of what is to be described as being self-serving. Yes, they know and are not about to change the status quo, even at the expense of you and me. After all, there are still our neighbors who don't know what you and I do.
Next, individual members of Government are no different than you and I. There is so much to be done in their capacity, and so little time to do it in. It is not that I am suggesting that all politicians are rotten when they are elected but, after one term, if something of a positive nature can't be seen by their actions, then this is an indication that they have accepted what has been going on and are now a part of the "good old boys" network and will continue on as their predecessors did. In other words, when a junior member of Congress disagrees with a senior member, that is for appearances only and seniority will prevail. This is where partisan politics come into play, and instead of an individual being a citizen first, he or she is not for this country first, but for the party in control of the majority of Government. This is known as job security!
Now, as you and I know, Rome was not built in a day; Government did not attain their unlawful status or their unconstitutional position overnight. While each of us can cite several occasions in which Government screwed us around, we have only ourselves and our ancestors to blame by our attitude of indifference.
The single most flagrant violation or usurpation of our rights started in the early 1850s. This is when the two most significant obligations were issued. They are, COSMOS certificate number 3392, sub-number 181, which replace numbers 143, 149, and 152; and certificate number 3392, sub number 185, which replace numbers 153, 156, and 157.
The COSMOS certificate has first place on redemption and those certificates are unusual in that they have no specified dollar amount but place a hold or a lien on all gold within the physical United States, as gold was used as the only certain security for those obligations. In other words, if the holders of those notes find themselves in the position of default, for any reason, they can call the notes and demand payment in full, in gold, and all of it in the possession of the United States Government. Now you know why Roosevelt pushed through the Gold Reserve Act of 1934. Yes. it is non-positive law!
Next came a Presidential Order in 1947, which was not acted upon by Congress but known by the then-members, enabling the Chief Executive of our country to direct the Treasurer of the United States to issue, to nations friendly to us, certificates with the full backing of this country, for specified amounts to develop their countries. This was deemed to be a better alternative than actually giving cash. These certificates were not to be cashed but were to be used to obtain lines of credit, and then to be returned as soon as a permanent line of financing could be granted. In other words, this country was an interim co-signer to get other countries over the hump; and, of course, we, as a country, had just bought a new ally right out from under the Communist noses--so we were told. Naturally, what you weren't told was who those certificates went to. Some went to Japan and other Far East nations, several went to the Near East, which I will refer to as camel merchants. Also, what you were not told was, those certificates were only issued to countries which had as leaders, assholes such as Saddam Hussein. Our country knew that there was little or no chance of being repaid, and actually gave out the certificates for political reasons, more than any other single reason. Although no Chief Executive would admit to actually ordering the issues of the certificates, they were instrumental in several countries not becoming Communistic. However, whenever the Constitution is circumvented, those acts will come back to haunt you every time. Had several of those countries gone the way of Lenin, Communism would have failed many, many years ago. You can really say that our interference with those countries actually propagated Communism. The issuance of those certificates helped many ways towards a One World Order, which has been the aim of several so-called patriots.
Now, to my knowledge of most of those certificates, there are 210 listed as obligations of the United States, as listed within the computer files and records of the Treasury of the United States within the files of the private, or profit, organization known as the Federal Reserve System. In 1983 and during the final stages of my breakup with The Committee (of 14, at that time), I decided to take something to remember them by. Knowing that several fire-proof file cabinets, that had combination locks on them, sat inside the main office, I borrowed a half-ton pick-up truck from a friend of mine and stopped and rented a refrigerator dolly. I drove to 16th Avenue Northwest in Washington, D.C. and loaded four of them into the back of the truck. The load was too heavy for the truck and it took over 2 hours to go the short distance to the plane to Virginia.
I was contacted the following day by the Committee; I was asked if it was I who had taken the files and I admitted that I had done so. I was requested to return them, and I stated that I had not inspected the contents of the file cabinets and would consider doing so only after my inspection. I still retain those files. Most of the contents of those files (which included the original obligations, 183 of them) are, but not restricted to: Several original Presidential findings; medical records of some very interesting people; hidden financial holdings of some very interesting people. In other words information that is very damaging. I will give it, piece by piece, to a Federal Grand Jury, which is already committed.
I know that several of you are very committed to what you are doing; if you would like me to be of assistance to you, please ask. I only ask that you know of the league that you're playing in and when you open your mouth you do so with intent and purpose and fully understand the potential ramifications.
/s/ Ronn Jackson
CHAPTER 16
OBSERVATIONS OF ANOTHER BAD DAY IN COURT
by Brent Moorhead 8/8/94
Last Thursday, August 4th, 1994, I attended yet another hearing on the Ekker "criminal trespass" case at the Kern County Municipal Court in Mojave. I want to take this opportunity to share with our readers my personal observations and opinions about the type of activity that many of us have witnessed in this court and others.
This should have been the final hearing on the case because the property [lot], alleged to have been criminally trodden upon by the Ekkers, was sold, subsequent to the filing of the original criminal trespass charges, to the Phoenix Church of Christ (Phoenix, Arizona). This church also owns (next door to the lot) the house where the Ekkers are caretakers. With this in mind, those of us waiting to hear the case called up by the judge were rather typically disappointed by the events that followed.
The presiding judge turned out to be Judge Quinlen, whom the Ekkers helped get elected in his run against former Judge Jason Brent. Our regular readers will recognize the name of Jason Brent because of his collaboration with one George Green. Anyway, shortly after he called their case, Judge Quinlen said that he knew the Ekkers and he then stated that he would not be able to make any rulings on any motions and that he would have to recuse [legalese for disqualify] himself from the case. That was very frustrating because Mr. Scott Tips (attorney for the Ekkers) was just getting started with his oral motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that there was obviously no longer any interest by the original owner and, to any rational mind, there would be no point in continuing the prosecution.
Ah, but rational or reasonable thinking rarely enters the courts these days, as many of you have found out! Mr. Tips stated to Judge Quinlen that he had contacted Mr. Oglesby (Deputy District Attorney) to ask that the case be dropped. Mr. Oglesby had replied to him by stating that if the Ekkers paid the original property owner's legal bills, that he would consider dropping the case! Well, first of all, that sounds like extortion to me, and second, why would he care if that particular attorney got paid? The case was being prosecuted by the County and not the original property owner. So, why would or should the Ekkers pay any legal bills of the property owner, who was not even a principal in this criminal case?!? This was not a civil action.
Well, the plot thickens as it usually does when you have dark energies involved. Now, guess who the attorney was for the original property owner who was still trying to get paid for initiating this entire action against the Ekkers? That's right--you guessed it--JASON BRENT!! Oh, aren't we having fun now! When I found that out, this case began to have a sort of twisted sense to it. Later, in the evening, at approximately 5:24 PM, Mr. Oglesby was seen getting out of his 4-door Chevy Caprice and walking into the office of Jason Brent. What an amazing coincidence. Now I've gotten ahead of myself so let's go back again.
The next order of business was for Judge Quinlen to set a new trial hearing date for the Ekkers because, even if he wanted to dismiss the case, he legally couldn't. Mr. Oglesby argued vigorously for a quick trial date so that these horrible senior "trespassers" could be brought to justice. (All of this in the face of the fact that the Ekkers have a legal easement, or right of pass-thru, to the lot and this is known by all parties involved.)
Mr. Tips argued very effectively that he would need time to file motions and prepare for trial if Mr. Oglesby intended to pursue this unwarranted and stupid case (adjectives mine) any further. Mr. Oglesby abruptly walked out of the courtroom twice while Mr. Tips was speaking to Judge Quinlen. Not only is this incredibly rude, it shows a total lack of respect. I would guess that Mr. Oglesby needed to make a call to Jason Brent for further instructions.
Well, over strong objections by Mr. Oglesby, Judge Quinlen set a new trial date for October 11, 1994. Hopefully, the next judge will dismiss the case. BUT--something tells me not to breathe a sigh of relief just quite yet!