Are we still under military rule? The war that never ended.

[motla68]

"" Where was the treaty signed? There was no treaty signed to end the Civil War. The surrender at Appomattox Court House was a military surrender of an army which was surrounded. The Confederate government never surrendered and even had it wanted to the United States government would likely not have accepted. To do so would have legally acknowledged the existence of the Confederate States
of America and would have legitimized it and given it certain legal status internationally. Treaties are between two nations and the U.S. would never concede the legal existence of the Confederacy - even though it had a government, armies, taxes and all the trappings of a modern government. ""

Source: http://www.nps.gov/apco/faqs.htm
Site last updated: May 12, 2011 at 22:08 MST

[allodial]

"" Where was the treaty signed? There was no treaty signed to end the Civil War. The surrender at Appomattox Court House was a military surrender of an army which was surrounded. The Confederate government never surrendered and even had it wanted to the United States government would likely not have accepted. To do so would have legally acknowledged the existence of the Confederate States
of America and would have legitimized it and given it certain legal status internationally. Treaties are between two nations and the U.S. would never concede the legal existence of the Confederacy - even though it had a government, armies, taxes and all the trappings of a modern government. ""

Source: http://www.nps.gov/apco/faqs.htm
Site last updated: May 12, 2011 at 22:08 MST

Depends on who/what the "we" is?

[motla68]

Depends on who/what the "we" is?

This "We" as in conscience of what STS has determined.

I will not make any other determinations in here about that, seeing that it does not conform to how STS defines it as I do, but that is besides the point being made.

[shikamaru]

Yes, Reconstruction Acts.
How can resident (aliens) seat offices that only inhabitants of that political community can seat?

[allodial]

It can be complex. But it is possible to sit on the steps of the buuilding called the U.S. Capital and not be in the United States. The United States since 1862/1871 has formed districts called states and there are at least 50 of them. Its pretty simple in the regard that if a commander in chief of the United States forms a government then the government would be military in nature.

Reconstruction Acts...

Enrollment Acts, etc.

[Michael Joseph]

It can be complex. But it is possible to sit on the steps of the buuilding called the U.S. Capital and not be in the United States. The United States since 1862/1871 has formed districts called states and there are at least 50 of them. Its pretty simple in the regard that if a commander in chief of the United States forms a government then the government would be military in nature.


Enrollment Acts, etc.

1Ki 16:16 And the people that were encamped heard say, Zimri hath conspired, and hath also slain the king: wherefore all Israel made Omri, the captain of the host, king over Israel that day in the camp.

[David Merrill]

I just took a look (more a listen - video is audio only) at the first few minutes of This.

Albeit you cannot find any treaty ending the hostilities of the War or Rebellion (Civil War), you do find that the conditions of Emergency were ended formally in 1973 - for most all aspects of the application of the Lieber Code except the current bank "run" on the US Dollar. I also played this video by Porter STANSBERRY - again - even though I know he never gives any solutions in it, just wants to sell his program.

The run that should incite the new Bankers' Holiday is already underway. This is the arena where the Lieber Code, if any can apply. The forum of endorsement of the Fed because the only remnants of the Emergency for the Lieber Code to operate still in effect is the Emergency of Saving the Fed - 1933.

Even listening to STANSBERRY though, it is a little dated and albeit we get the early draft of BRICS, he does not predict a retaliatory financial regime forming based in SDR's having nothing to do with the US Dollar - BRICS. (Also attached.)

He had a good basis but the prophecy is not the way he prophesied.

I disagree that the Lieber Code is in play for people who understand the redemption of lawful money. - US Notes in the form of Federal Reserve Notes, because the hostilities of the War ended by 1865. There is no actual theater of war any longer. There is still fiat currency - and FDR took advantage of the Lieber Code in 1933 to save the Fed; but it is people endorsing private credit from the Fed that keep saving it, and people are stopping that endorsement and that makes everybody's predictions quite skewed:

[shikamaru]

If a new bank holiday is on the way....

.... you want to make sure that you have nothing of value in a bank nor would I keep a great deal of cash in one's account.

Keep your assets close to the vest.

Its a little hard getting your stuff when the door is closed for x number of days.

[allodial]

I disagree that the Lieber Code is in play for people who understand the redemption of lawful money. - US Notes in the form of Federal Reserve Notes, because the hostilities of the War ended by 1865. There is no actual theater of war any longer. There is still fiat currency - and FDR took advantage of the Lieber Code in 1933 to save the Fed; but it is people endorsing private credit from the Fed that keep saving it, and people are stopping that endorsement and that makes everybody's predictions quite skewed:

AFAIK, for the USA, the military-revenue districts could still be in place regardless of any emergency circumstances of 1933 through the Selective Service Acts and not to mention the many military bases throughout the United States of America geographic region--they are in the 'plenary zones' of the US Congress afaik. Soldiers in waiting (Selective-Service participants) are perhaps regarded as soldiers. Aren't Civil Service grades (college degree-levels) already matched up to military ranks?

So perhaps this gets to "Why do they push 'Selective Service' on high school students?" [Without it maybe there might be no connection to the U.S. military districts for the average Joe--but then the revenue district connections are perhaps through a relationship with the IRS. ]

The key being--if it is true that the original Congress of the United States of America was reconvened and reconstituted by Abraham Lincoln as Commander In Chief of the US Navy/Army --then the Congress convened would despite being a great look-alike it would be inferior in character to the original parliamentary body referred to in the Constitution for the United States of America although the very same Abe as CINC and President of the United States derived power. On that not: it is a well-established, 'blackletter law' that when a 'state' goes *poof* all power reverts to the creator of such state--as in -> the delegation ends. Now the notion of the original U.S.A Congress convening sine die, and the reconstruction of the United States of America being a military operation--you know 'military maintenance of government' while the sovereign is away..or something.

Perhaps its like this:

[1] Scrip is for on-base transactions (which are in military districts)
[2] Lawful money is for off-base transactions.

In Star Trek scrip was used in the Federation (the Admiralty-Maritime, Military-Revenue Zone of the Federation). Gold-pressed Latinum (as in gold shells encasing a substance called "latinum") was for 'off base' transactions. Was Gene RODDENBERRY privy to some knowledge?

Major point..end of war..vs. prosecution of war. US's relationship to Germany since WWII might be an exemplary example of long-term prosecution of war even after the barrels are not only cold but the hands of most of the those who held the instruments of combat are long, long dead.

'Funny thing' the Eurodollar is nothing but the US dollar in Europe or at least the term 'eurodollar' since World War II was used to refer to U.S. dollar denominated accounts in European banks.

Eurodollars are time deposits denominated in U.S. dollars at banks outside the United States, and thus are not under the jurisdiction of the Federal Reserve. Consequently, such deposits are subject to much less regulation than similar deposits within the U.S., allowing for higher margins. The term was originally coined for U.S. dollars in European banks, but it expanded over the years to its present definition: a U.S. dollar-denominated deposit in Tokyo or Beijing would be likewise deemed a Eurodollar deposit. There is no connection with the euro currency or the euro zone.

Though Wikipedia puts forth the above-quoted--I learned such years ago from the US Department of Justice directly. So begs the question what is really-really-really going on?

There are those that suggest that the occupation of Germany is closely tied to the very existence of the United Nations. And it makes sense in view of the Declaration by the United Nations--which itself is very telling in that it IMHO reveals that the United Nations was originally formed as a military alliance against Germany and other so-called "Axis Powers". And of course..the connection between the UN and the IMF is obvious.

U.N. Charter - Article 53
1. The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority. But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council, with the exception of measures against any enemy state, as defined in paragraph 2 of this Article, provided for pursuant to Article 107 or in regional arrangements directed against renewal of aggressive policy on the part of any such state, until such time as the Organization may, on request of the Governments concerned, be charged with the responsibility for preventing further aggression by such a state.

2. The term enemy state as used in paragraph 1 of this Article applies to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory of the present Charter.

U.N. Charter - Article 107
Nothing in the present Charter shall invalidate or preclude action, in relation to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory to the present Charter, taken or authorized as a result of that war by the Governments having responsibility for such action.

IMHO and based on arduous research: United Nations came into existence in 1942 vis-a-vis Declaration by the United Nations, January 1, 1942 (A Joint Declaration by the United States, the United Kingdom, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, China, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Poland, South Africa, Yugoslavia).

[GERMANY IS NOT ON THE LIST!]

From the 1942 Declaration by the United Nations:

...(1) Each Government pledges itself to employ its full resources, military or economic, against those members of the Tripartite Pact :and its adherents with which such government is at war.

(2) Each Government pledges itself to cooperate with the Governments signatory hereto and not to make a separate armistice or peace with the enemies.

You might find pledge or pledges of a similar spirit in the Declaration of Independence. But what is glaring here is an military and economic pledge (can you say MERGER?)--not just an economic one--was made which rather than preceding United Nations -> formed it!

The difference between the UN and NATO is what?

2. The term enemy state as used in paragraph 1 of this Article applies to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory of the present Charter.

There are quite a few that suggest that Germany (Japan too!) is still under U.S. occupation to this very day. Would it be true that the "Confederacy" "has been" an enemy of the United States?

[ Perhaps see also "Trading With the Enemy Act"]

From a hour or so of research this morning, I will type that in my opinion, the patch worn by your uncle in Berlin, 1947, was the S.H.A.E.F. Patch. However, some sources provide a date in 1947 when the name of the patch was changed from S.H.A.E.F. to S.H.A.P.E. (Source)

[Trust Guy]

Good points allodial .

Lets include the 17th Amendment , adopted April 8, 1913 . Direct election of representative Senators by popular vote , rather than selection by the individual State legislatures .

The amendment supersedes Article I, § 3 , Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, under which Senators were elected to represent each State . It also alters the procedure for filling vacancies in the Senate , to be consistent with the method of election .

On the Trust side , the individual Estates in Union no longer have equal representation in the central ( Federal ) governing body . Estate Trustees have no rights to recall a Senator who is not acting in the best interest of their individual Bodies Politic or boundary land use , leaving any semblance of that power to the arduous process of Recall .

when a 'state' goes *poof* all power reverts to the creator of such state--as in -> the delegation ends.

One may also view the War and Reconstruction Act as implementation of a hostile takeover. The United States of America went *poof* when the Confederate Estates , part of the creators of the Union , withdrew and reformed . The US of A could have continued more peacefully, but rather took the war course in eventually seizing the Trust Res of the Confederate States and Converted them to another Use .

All in all Breach of Trust .

In conversation with the Constitutional Law Professor of my acquaintance , he conceded the States COULD reform the Federal Government by asserting their Trust authority and reassigning Trustees for the Central Government .

Andrew Johnson - Veto of the First Reconstruction Act - March 2, 1867


I have examined the bill "to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel States" with the care and the anxiety which its transcendent importance is calculated to awaken. I am unable to give it my assent for reasons so grave that I hope a statement of them may have some influence on the minds of the patriotic and enlightened men with whom the decision must ultimately rest.

The bill places all the people of the ten States therein named under the absolute domination of military rulers; and the preamble undertakes to give the reason upon which the measure is based and the ground upon which it is justified. It declares that there exists in those States no legal governments and no adequate protection for life or property, and asserts the necessity of enforcing peace and good order within their limits. Is this true as matter of fact?

It is not denied that the States in question have each of them an actual government, with all the powers- executive, judicial, and legislative-which properly belong to a free state. They are organized like the other States of the Union, and, like them, they make, administer, and execute the laws which concern their domestic affairs. An existing de facto government, exercising such functions as these, is itself the law of the state upon all matters within its jurisdiction. To pronounce the supreme law-making power of an established state illegal is to say that law itself is unlawful.

The provisions which these governments have made for the preservation of order, the suppression of crime, and the redress of private injuries are in substance and principle the same as those which prevail in the Northern States and in other civilized countries. .

The bill, however, would seem to show upon its face that the establishment of peace and good order is not its real object. The fifth section declares that the preceding sections shall cease to operate in any State where certain events shall have happened. . . . All these conditions must be fulfilled before the people of any of these States can be relieved from the bondage of military domination; but when they are fulfilled, then immediately the pains and penalties of the bill are to cease, no matter whether there be peace and order or not, and without any reference to the security of life or property. The excuse given for the bill in the preamble is admitted by the bill itself not to be real. The military rule which it establishes is plainly to be used, not for any purpose of order or for the prevention of crime, but solely as a means of coercing the people into the adoption of principles and measures to which it is known that they are opposed, and upon which they have an undeniable right to exercise their own judgment.

More at link above .

Additional Resource : First Reconstruction Act - March 2, 1867 - An Act to provide for the more efficient Government of the Rebel States

[Passed over President Johnson’s veto March 2, 1867]