A.R.T.F.O.
AMERICAN MORTGAGE CORRECTION FOUNDATION

A.R.T.F.O. is a private foundation and trust organization.  Our main objectives and goals are to assist members of the public.  For 89 years the law has been the same, whereas that in exchange for the government being assisted with the "National Emergency Economic Banking Relief Act," otherwise known as the Trading with the Enemy Act amended March 9, 1933.  The government announced a serious national emergency and called upon the public to assist them with alleviating the stress on the economy.

We are simply here to remind the government that they have defined what the new money is since 1933 by the March 9 Act, for which they stated:

"The last section of the bill provides for the issuance of a new money.  I am a little at a loss, in the hurried way I have had to read the bill, to understand just how this new money is to be handled.  I refer to section 401,

which reads: Upon deposit with the Treasurer of the United States of all

contract obligations of the United States, or any notes--

And so forth.  Under the Federal Reserve Act obligations that are deposited as the security and gold for reserve notes are placed in

the hands of the Federal Reserve agent." (Page 80 bottom left).

The government asked that the people give up their gold in large quantities and in exchange for the surrendering of the gold to the United States treasury, the Government would then reclassify their instruments, government contractual obligations, bonds, notes, drafts, trade acceptances, bankers acceptances, and bills of exchange as the security and gold backing the new Federal Reserve bank notes which are now known as Federal Reserve notes.  [Act of March 9, 1933 (Emergency Banking Relief Act), Public Law 73-1, 48 STAT 1., 3/9/1933]

A review of the congressional record for March 9, 1933 identifies the intent of Congress to create a new money:

"Yet today we are told that the national credit will be ruined if we undertake to finance
$ 10,000,000,000 to save the little man on the farm, the laboring man, the little poor
man, and every man in this country today who has a little bank account, and not only will such people be benefited if we guarantee bank deposits but we will make money available, by credit, through the little banks throughout the length and breadth of this country to people who cannot now borrow a thin dime at one of those banks."

and they further stated:


"IMMEDIATE RELIEF SOUGHT
The changes which the resolution seeks in Title IV of the national laws were designed to afford immediate relief to State banks.
Under the terms of the national legislation members of the Federal Reserve System have rediscount privileges on notes, drafts, bankers' acceptances, and other forms of bank paper.  However, for State banks that are not members this phase of business may be carried on solely through their correspondent banks that are members of the Reserve System. In this way many banks are placed virtually at the mercy of other banks without
having direct recourse to the Federal Reserve.  Also, under the emergency national laws members of the Federal Reserve banks may obtain currency from the Federal Reserve
up to 90 per cent of notes secured by collateral placed with the central System. State banks that are not members would be unable to obtain any of this currency under the bill as it stands.  It was in order to rectify this condition that Governor Lehman's resolution asked the President and Congress to "make available similar facilities to sound and worthy nonmember State banking institutions so that they may be permitted to reopen coincidentally with sound national banks and member banks." 

And then when they met in joint session they documented that because there is a mortgage already on all of the homes and all of the property of the people, that it is impossible for any mortgage Company to claim that the people have placed their property as collateral for the loan when the Senate has made clear in  Senate Doc. number 43, that the ownership of all property is in the State and any so-called individual ownership is only through mere usury, i.e.: through a parent ownership at the leisure of the State.

"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of Government, i.e. law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law, and subordinate to the necessities of the State.  The fact that citizens, at a given time, may prefer specie to currency, or vice versa, can not prevent Congress from enacting those laws which it deems necessary to the maintenance of a proper monetary system. If the law makes specie and currency equivalent for purposes of payment, a failure to pay a given sum in specie, according to contract, cannot possibly beget an obligation to pay a greater sum in legal-tender notes, whatever premium men may choose to five for gold, when forced to obtain it for a specific purpose, or when impelled by a spirit of speculation, or by a distrust of Government. (Brown v. Welch, supra.)  While the courts cannot control our citizens’ preferences for one kind of money over another kind, or prevent them from giving a premium for the one or the other kind of money, when the fiscal affairs of the Government necessitate the adoption of a certain policy, expressed in constitutional legislative enactment, such as the maintenance of a monetary system consisting of specie and currency, to be acceptable interchangeably as to the value of the dollar, the courts should not give effect to a stipulation impugning the power of the legislature to make such laws, and should not apply those laws to the construction of contracts in such a way as to defeat the legitimate purpose of those laws, upon the enforcement of which the very existence of the Government may depend, or, at least, the aggregate well-being of the whole people is contemplated.  As it is not strictly correct to say that a contract is “invalid” merely because the courts will not enforce it, since enforcement may be withheld from valid promises because some provision of law prohibits enforcement, such, for example, as the statute of limitations, or the want of a legal consideration, valid contracts may be made and carried out between parties, without regard to legal limitations, so long as the jurisdiction of courts is not invoked to enforce the agreement. But when judicial enforcement is sought, the courts must find all pertinent constitutional laws tacitly written into every contract they construe.  So a contract to pay dollars tacitly includes the laws of the United States defining “dollar” and regulating the value thereof and prescribing its usability as money.  A contract to pay dollars “in
gold” or in any other form of money of the United States, tacitly incorporates into that contract the parity act declaring all forms of money issued or to be issued by the United States at a parity.  Hence, the courts, in construing such a contract, must read into that contract the parity act, and if the promisee brings an action on the contract,
the defendant’s plea that he has tendered in payment any money that is lawful tender under the laws of the United States, is good, since all forms of money are at a parity and the defendant’s plea, in effect, is that he has tendered the equivalent of the thing promised."

So, we asked one simple question, are we not required to follow the law, and if we are required to follow the law is not Congress and the Federal Reserve including their member banks required to follow the law  If the law states:

Application for notes by Federal Reserve banks
Any Federal Reserve bank may make application to the local Federal Reserve agent for such amount of the Federal Reserve notes hereinbefore provided for as it may require. Such application shall be accompanied with a tender to the local Federal Reserve agent of collateral in amount equal to the sum of the Federal Reserve notes thus applied for and issued pursuant to such application.  The collateral security thus offered shall be notes, drafts, bills of exchange, or acceptances acquired under section 10A, 10B, 13, or 13A of this Act, or bills of exchange endorsed by a member bank of any Federal Reserve district and purchased under the provisions of section 14 of this Act, or bankers' acceptances purchased under the provisions of said section 14, or gold certificates, or Special Drawing Right certificates, or any obligations which are direct obligations of, or are fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by, the United States or any agency thereof, or assets that Federal Reserve banks may purchase or hold under section 14 of this Act or any other asset of a Federal reserve bank. In no event shall such collateral security be less than the amount of Federal Reserve notes applied for. The Federal Reserve agent shall each day notify the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System of all issues and withdrawals of Federal Reserve notes to and by the Federal Reserve bank to which he is accredited. The said Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System may at any time call upon a Federal Reserve bank for additional security to protect the Federal Reserve notes issued to it. Collateral shall not be required for Federal Reserve notes which are held in the vaults of, or are otherwise held by or on behalf of, Federal Reserve banks.

[12 USC 412. As amended by the acts of Sept. 7, 1916 (39 Stat. 754); June 21, 1917 (40 Stat. 236); Feb. 27, 1932 (47 Stat. 57); Feb. 3, 1933 (47 Stat. 794); Jan. 30, 1934 (48 Stat. 338); March 6, 1934 (48 Stat. 991); June 30, 1941 (55 Stat. 395); May 25, 1943 (57 Stat. 85); June 12, 1945 (59 Stat. 237); June 19, 1968 (82 Stat. 189); Nov. 10, 1978 (92 Stat. 3672); March 31, 1980 (94 Stat. 140); Dec. 6, 1999 (113 Stat. 1638); Oct. 28, 2003 (117 Stat. 1193) and 59 Stat. 237 § 2]

You will notice that the above section was taken from the Federal Reserve website, which is word for word.  59 Stat. 238, § 2.   Please note that 12 U.S.C. § 412 does not match the text of the original statute, and should not be readily relied upon, without the congressional act by the statute at large.