When
are We, the People going to stand up and DECLARE TREASON and ECONOMIC
ESPIONAGE against this Un-American Activity and call it exactly what it is and
that is TREASON!?
"Overt acts are such acts as manifest a criminal intention and tend towards the accomplishment of the criminal object. They are acts by which the purpose is manifested and the means by which it is intended to be fulfilled."
The appeal of Cramer v. United States, recently heard on re-argument in the Supreme Court of the United States, illustrates both the need to resort to history and the limitations of the assistance which history can give, in applying the policy of the treason clause.3 As has been noted, the propriety or wisdom of resort to history is implicit in the framers' deliberate use of a tradition-weighted concept of the crime of subversion of the state. This of course does not mean that constitutional policy is to be straitjacketed or to be easily evaded by skirting the edges of the peculiar situations which make up the history of the policy involved. The American decisions are uniform to the effect that the restrictive policy of the treason clause is to be understood in the light of history, but, likewise, that it is to be vigorously and sympathetically enforced out of respect to the lessons of that history.4 Thus, there is of course no difficulty in ruling that, within the terms borrowed from a fourteenth century statute, aid may be rendered an enemy by means familiar to the commercial world of the twentieth century.5
ACTS OF TREASON AND ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE 1-U.S. TREASURY'S LEW WELCOMES CHINESE CURRENCY MOVE.. READ IT!
To: "V.K.Durham"
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 9:12:37 PM
Subject: Fwd: REUTERS: UPDATE 1-U.S. Treasury's Lew welcomes Chinese currency move
"Overt acts are such acts as manifest a criminal intention and tend towards the accomplishment of the criminal object. They are acts by which the purpose is manifested and the means by which it is intended to be fulfilled."
The appeal of Cramer v. United States, recently heard on re-argument in the Supreme Court of the United States, illustrates both the need to resort to history and the limitations of the assistance which history can give, in applying the policy of the treason clause.3 As has been noted, the propriety or wisdom of resort to history is implicit in the framers' deliberate use of a tradition-weighted concept of the crime of subversion of the state. This of course does not mean that constitutional policy is to be straitjacketed or to be easily evaded by skirting the edges of the peculiar situations which make up the history of the policy involved. The American decisions are uniform to the effect that the restrictive policy of the treason clause is to be understood in the light of history, but, likewise, that it is to be vigorously and sympathetically enforced out of respect to the lessons of that history.4 Thus, there is of course no difficulty in ruling that, within the terms borrowed from a fourteenth century statute, aid may be rendered an enemy by means familiar to the commercial world of the twentieth century.5
Granted
that the treason clause calls for careful examination of the history evoked by
its terms, how far may that inquiry be pressed?
CONTINUED http://www.constitution.org/cmt/jwh/jwh_treason_1.htm
Lets take a look at TREASON defined in Cramer v. United States to wit;
snip].
Anthony Cramer, the petitioner, stands convicted of violating Section 1 of the Criminal Code, which provides: 'Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason.' 1
Cramer owed allegiance to the United States. A German by birth, he had been a resident of the United States since 1925 and was naturalized in 1936. Prosecution resulted from his association with two of the German saboteurs who in June 1942 landed on our shores from enemy submarines to disrupt industry in the United States and whose cases we considered in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 63 S.Ct. 1, 87 L.Ed. 3. One of those, spared from execution, appeared as a government witness on the trial of Cramer. He testified that Werner Thiel and Edward Kerling were members of that sabotage crew, detailed their plot, and described their preparations for its consummation.
snip]. Cramer was arrested, tried, and found guilty. The trial judge at the time of sentencing said:
CONTINUED http://www.constitution.org/cmt/jwh/jwh_treason_1.htm
Lets take a look at TREASON defined in Cramer v. United States to wit;
snip].
Anthony Cramer, the petitioner, stands convicted of violating Section 1 of the Criminal Code, which provides: 'Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason.' 1
Cramer owed allegiance to the United States. A German by birth, he had been a resident of the United States since 1925 and was naturalized in 1936. Prosecution resulted from his association with two of the German saboteurs who in June 1942 landed on our shores from enemy submarines to disrupt industry in the United States and whose cases we considered in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 63 S.Ct. 1, 87 L.Ed. 3. One of those, spared from execution, appeared as a government witness on the trial of Cramer. He testified that Werner Thiel and Edward Kerling were members of that sabotage crew, detailed their plot, and described their preparations for its consummation.
snip]. Cramer was arrested, tried, and found guilty. The trial judge at the time of sentencing said:
'I shall
not impose the maximum penalty of death. It does not appear that this defendant
Cramer was aware that Thiel and Kerling were in possession of explosives or
other means for destroying factories and property in the United States or
planned to do that.
'From the
evidence it appears that Cramer had no more guilty knowledge of any subversive
purposes on the part of Thiel or Kerling than a vague idea that they came here
for the purpose of organizing pro-German propaganda and agitation. If there
were any proof that they had confided in him what their real purposes were, or
that he knew, or believed what they really were, I should not hesitate to
impose the death penalty.'
Cramer's
case raises questions as to application of the Constitutional provision that
'Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against
them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person
shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the
same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.' 2
Cramer's
contention may be well stated in words of Judge Learned Hand in United States
v. Robinson: 3
'Nevertheless
a question may indeed be raised whether the prosecution may lay as an overt act
a step taken in execution of the traitorous design, innocent in itself, and
getting its treasonable character only from some covert and undeclared intent.
It is true that in prosecutions for conspiracy under our federal statute it is
well settled that any step in performance of the conspiracy is enough, though it
is innocent except for its relations to the agreement. I doubt very much
whether that rule has any application to the case of treason, where the
requirement affected the character of the pleading and proof, rather than
accorded a season of repentance before the crime should be complete. Lord Reading
in his charge in Casement's Case uses language which accords with my
understanding:
"Overt acts are such acts as manifest a criminal intention
and tend towards the accomplishment of the criminal object. They are acts by
which the purpose is manifested and the means by which it is
intended to be fulfilled." 4
CRAMER v. UNITED STATES. 325 U.S. 1 (65 S.Ct. 918, 89 L.Ed. 1441).
WE DO HAVE
EVIDENCE OF CONSTRUCTIVE TREASON ENDANGERING THE FINANCIAL, ECONOMIC
"INTERNATIONAL GOOD FAITH AND CREDIT" OF THIS NATION BY ACTIVELY
ENGAGING IN DESTRUCTION OF THE U.S. DOLLAR BACKED BY GOLD AND SILVER WHILE
USING THE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE MONOPOLY MONEY AS A "SMOKE SCREEN AKA
DOPPLEGANGER".. not many know about the U.S. DOLLAR.. but the world is
fighting for its very existence against the Federal Reserve Note
pretender. Read DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Russell L. Munk / Byron C. Dale
Correspondence Nov 1, 1982
The
proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 have been related in the
opinion of the Court. And see Hurst, Treason in the United States, 58
Harv.L.Rev. 395. As the Court points out the Framers were anxious to guard
against convictions of the innocent by perjury and to remove treason from the realm
of domestic, political disputes. Franklin expressed concern on the first in his
statement that 'prosecutions for treason were generally virulent; and perjury
too easily made use of against innocence.' 2 Farrand, Records of the Federal
Convention, p. 348. Madison and Jefferson 2 both
expressed distrust of treason for its long history of abuse in the political
field. Madison said in language somewhat reminiscent of Blackstone: 'As treason
may be committed against the United States, the authority of the United States
ought to be enabled to punish it. But as new-fangled and artifical treasons
have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of
free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other,
the convention have, with great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar
danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof
necessary for conviction of it, and restraining the Congress, even in punishing
it, from extending the consequences of guilt beyond the person of its author.'
The Federalist, No. XLIII.
The
requirement of two wotnesses was not novel. England had long had that rule. 9
Holdsworth, A History of English Law (2d ed. 1938) p. 207. The novelty was in
the requirement that there be two witnesses to the 'same' overt act. Moreover,
there was no novely in the offenses which were included in the definition of
treason. Adhering to the enemy, giving him aid and comfort, like levying war,
had long been embraced in the English crime of treason as we have seen. But
there was novelty in the narrow definition of treason which was adopted—a
restrictive definition born of the fear of constructive treason and distrust of
treason as a political instrument. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/325/1#fn3
ACTS OF TREASON AND ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE 1-U.S. TREASURY'S LEW WELCOMES CHINESE CURRENCY MOVE.. READ IT!
To: "V.K.Durham"
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 9:12:37 PM
Subject: Fwd: REUTERS: UPDATE 1-U.S. Treasury's Lew welcomes Chinese currency move
more fyi
|
No comments:
Post a Comment