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

[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]

[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 .

And speculatively, that style of voting *might* be for the residents of the post-1862, military-created or defacto "State" of the United States.

The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) to the United States Constitution established direct election of United States Senators by popular vote. The amendment supersedes Article I, § 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, under which Senators were elected by state legislatures. It also alters the procedure for filling vacancies in the Senate, to be consistent with the method of election. It was adopted on April 8, 1913.(Source: Wikipedia)

Article I, § 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the U.S. Constitution:

Section 3 - The Senate

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the Legislature thereof,) (The preceding words in parentheses superseded by 17th Amendment, section 1.) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; (and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, [U]during the Recess of the Legislature of any State the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.) (The preceding words in parentheses were superseded by the 17th Amendment, section 2.)

Why was there a need to have the people of a State elect rather than the legislature of a State choose? Was it because the U.S. Senate wanted to pull something off related to MONEY that it could not otherwise without the sovereign's DIRECT depute? Relevantly was it because they knew they were dealing with defacto, post-Civil-War States that lacked power they NEEDED and they KNEW it?

The 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. {Why must the electors be 'in' each State. Were electors previously presumed to be without a State...as in ..private? Or as in outside of a land strange to them?}

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

How does the executive of a State issue writs on the people? Or is this a different kind of 'people'? Like residents or public citizens as opposed to sovereigns?

One of the most common critiques of the Framers is that the government that they created was, in many ways, undemocratic. There is little doubt of this, and it is so by design. The Electoral College, by which we choose our President, is one example. The appointment of judges is another. And the selection of Senators not by the people but by the state legislatures, is yet another. The Senatorial selection system eventually became fraught with problems, with consecutive state legislatures sending different Senators to Congress, forcing the Senate to work out who was the qualified candidate, or with the selection system being corrupted by bribery and corruption. In several states, the selection of Senators was left up to the people in referenda, where the legislature approved the people's choice and sent him or her to the Senate. Articles written by early 20th-century muckrakers also provided grist for the popular-election mill.

The 17th Amendment did away with all the ambiguity with a simple premise — the Senators would be chosen by the people, just as Representatives are. Of course, since the candidates now had to cater to hundreds of thousands, or millions, of people instead of just a few hundred, other issues, such as campaign finances, were introduced. The 17th is not a panacea, but it brings government closer to the people. The Amendment was passed by Congress on May 13, 1912, and was ratified on April 8, 1913 (330 days).

Could there have been be a relationship between U.S. citizenship (-> the House or Representatives) and State nationality (-> the Senate) that is obviated by analysis of related history? Were U.S. (federal) citizens (14th amendment ) ever considered to be eligible for voting in the organic states of America? Is there a connection between the 17th Amendment and the Federal Reserve Act?

• February 3 – The 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution is ratified, authorizing the Federal government to impose and collect income taxes.
  
• The {17th} Amendment was passed by Congress on May 13, 1912, and was ratified on April 8, 1913 (330 days).
  
• October 3 – The United States Revenue Act of 1913 re-imposes the federal income tax and lowers basic tariff rates from 40% to 25%.
  
• The Federal Reserve Act (ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251, enacted December 23, 1913, 12 U.S.C. ch.3)

What's the relationship between interest, the Federal Reserve, military scrip, the 17th amendment and taxes?

... And the selection of Senators not by the people but by the state legislatures, is yet another....

What was 'wrong' with the State legislatures electing/selecting/choosing U.S. Senators? Did they need a more direct kind of endorsement of the people of a State? And still was it an organic state or a U.S. district-state? Did it depend on whether it was one of the first 13 or the first 33 (pre-Civil War) or not? There are perhaps at least two speculative extremes: (i) come 1917 the only U.S. States cognizable by the U.S. Congress were the post-Civil-war district-states rather than U.S. State legislatures--as in only 'seen' were the U.S.'s plenary zones and only U.S. citizens (not State Nationals) so therefore direct election was the ONLY way; or (ii) the U.S. still saw the sovereigns out there ..separate from the U.S. but then happily 'invited' them into direct election/endorsement through the 17th amendment?

As in for the Federal Reserve Act to really have teeth and for the coming Buck Act and Social Security Acts to have validity the US had to get the adequate approval-in-trusteeship for funding WWI, WWII, creating the FRB (needed approval to use the assets held in trust)--thus the 17th Amendment? Perhaps a stretch........perhaps not.



While the gold confiscation in the U.S. is widely discussed, how much gold and silver was already being held by the U.S. already during the year 1913 and by the time the Federal Reserve Act was passed? (See attached PDF.)

[xparte]

I enjoy how humble a education on the side of the road should never be about humility as someone has declared a emergency if keeping the peace is the understanding this question kills me DO YOU KNOW WHY I PULLED YOU OVER NO I SIMPLY WAS LETTING YOUR EMERGENCY VEHICLE THE ROADWAY I HAVEN'T BREACHED THE PEACE OR HAVE NO EMERGENCY WHY SORRY I CANT BE ANY MORE ASSISTANCE I CANT ACCEPT THAT I WAS ORDERED TO THE SIDE OF THIS ROADWAY FOR ANY LAWFUL CAUSE.THIS IS NON COMMERCIAL VIOLATION AND FALSE ARREST JUST THAT THOSE CLAIMS ARE UNDER WHAT AND WHOS AUTHORITY. i tried it all lost the cars few stays between the Bars i know if anyone that was not humbled with emergency issuance they are on the wrong page i get worn out just thinking about standing in both wrights and wrongs jack

[allodial]

I enjoy how humble a education on the side of the road should never be about humility as someone has declared a emergency if keeping the peace is the understanding this question kills me DO YOU KNOW WHY I PULLED YOU OVER NO I SIMPLY WAS LETTING YOUR EMERGENCY VEHICLE THE ROADWAY I HAVEN'T BREACHED THE PEACE OR HAVE NO EMERGENCY WHY SORRY I CANT BE ANY MORE ASSISTANCE I CANT ACCEPT THAT I WAS ORDERED TO THE SIDE OF THIS ROADWAY FOR ANY LAWFUL CAUSE.THIS IS NON COMMERCIAL VIOLATION AND FALSE ARREST JUST THAT THOSE CLAIMS ARE UNDER WHAT AND WHOS AUTHORITY. i tried it all lost the cars few stays between the Bars i know if anyone that was not humbled with emergency issuance they are on the wrong page i get worn out just thinking about standing in both wrights and wrongs jack

Perhaps a story about an attempt to escape from or avoid the presumptions (or presumptuousness?) of Roman Civil Law (and perhaps British Manorialism) might be insightful? [Right of avoidance?]

We do not find peaceful inhabitants left in peace without proper license plates. I know a fellow who lived in peace many years with Kingdom of Israel license plates but then one icy morning two cars slid into his and the Charges began to accrue. [I should inquire how that turned out.].

Winston Shrout rather succinctly has caused against going into 'the public' without a bond. 'Notice ahead of time' seeming to be a significant and key factor. And so the reminder of the nature of the Flood called Admiralty on land...

Among the many things that were important to our fore-fathers, the one thing that stood out was to establish a government free of any relationship or influence of the private Roman civil law operating in and controlling public policy. It was the oppression of the Roman civil law, as the king and parliament dictated, that was at the foundation for seeking expatriation from England under the king's assumed divine right. The Roman civil law (also referred to as "admiralty-maritime law"/15 or the "law of the sea" as well as "private international law") was the result of private church law operating for commercial purposes in the public sector. The amalgamation of church law and civil government was derived from three ingredients; Greece, Rome and Christianity. The political theory derived from the first two of these ingredients was tempered to accommodate the third. Its originators and apologists were the first Christian Emperor, Constantine, and the first historian of the Christian Church, Eusebius of Caesarea. Through his writings, Eusebius had once and for all established the new way to interpret history, and his followers applied the same political philosophy for over 1000 years.

In simple terms, Roman civil law is a perversion of private law. That is, the conscience of private law was never meant to operate in forming public policy of government. Private law was always a part of establishing bilateral contracts and could be used in government only for setting up private commercial relations between government and corporations called "licenses." But the conscience of private law could never operate without bilateral contracts unless it was through a trust.

It was this Roman civil law that had taken over all Europe and England and our founding fathers wanted nothing of it in the "commercial law system of the American states." It represented to them the most insidious form of slavery of both body and mind, that is, slavery by entrapment through one-sided or implied contracts the individual never was aware he was getting into until he was hit with compelled performance.

Thomas Jefferson expressed this disdain of Roman civil law being introduced into English common law in 1760 by Lord Mansfield. In fact, it was this decision that sparked the American revolution. After this date, Jefferson wanted nothing to do with the common law of England because of the way it had been polluted with Roman civil (ecclesiastical) law by Mansfield.

Note: many Bible-believers might not give too much weight to Constantine's sincerity. There those who suggest that Rome was out to wipe out true believers and with other means not working turning to used the strategy of 'incorporation' ("Let's be friends I'm one of you and your ruler too.")

And so the importance of libel of review.

Related:

U.S.A. The Republic Is the House That No One Lives In
Invisible Contracts (by George Mercier)

[pumpkin]

I enjoy how humble a education on the side of the road should never be about humility as someone has declared a emergency if keeping the peace is the understanding this question kills me DO YOU KNOW WHY I PULLED YOU OVER NO I SIMPLY WAS LETTING YOUR EMERGENCY VEHICLE THE ROADWAY I HAVEN'T BREACHED THE PEACE OR HAVE NO EMERGENCY WHY SORRY I CANT BE ANY MORE ASSISTANCE I CANT ACCEPT THAT I WAS ORDERED TO THE SIDE OF THIS ROADWAY FOR ANY LAWFUL CAUSE.THIS IS NON COMMERCIAL VIOLATION AND FALSE ARREST JUST THAT THOSE CLAIMS ARE UNDER WHAT AND WHOS AUTHORITY. i tried it all lost the cars few stays between the Bars i know if anyone that was not humbled with emergency issuance they are on the wrong page i get worn out just thinking about standing in both wrights and wrongs jack

Some interesting things I have found researching traffic law. Traffic law and the rules and processes used to enforce them, are applicable to an agency. That of course is an agency of government. Indiana code specially states that these processes NEED NOT CONCERN ITSELF WITH THINGS SUCH AS THE COMMON LAW RULES OF EVIDENCE AS WITH THE COURTS. Traffic laws are internal rules for government (and commerce). They enforce them using the courts, but the courts act administratively. The judical rules of court even specifically states that evidence of failure to have insurance is not admissible as to prove wrong doing, but only admissible concerning questions of agency (someone acting of the behalf of another). The entire point system for drivers license only exists within the administrave code. IMO, when you get pulled over and show the license with the seal of the state on it, you are presumed to be an employee of an agency. Not that the cop knows this, but it begins the presumption. License are a personal effect, and are not subject to unreasonable searches without warrant. Most 'laws' including traffic that are applied against the people are administrative only. Administrative is of course executive. The rights of the people are not directly subject to the executive, and true controversies of rights require judicial proceedures to resolve. Controversies between the people and government are not controversies of rights, as only the people have rights. Governments only have limited authority and limited powers. When government come against the people or one of the people, the situation can best be explained as a 'faithless servant'.

[Treefarmer]

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"]

I was born and raised in Germany and I was always under the impression that Germany was under US occupation.
Learning English was and is still mandatory for all German school children, even though England is not a popular travel destination. The languages of the countries directly adjoining Germany are not mandatory learning. Even though French is mostly taught as a third language, it is an elective and can be substituted for something else, e.g. Latin. At least that was the case in the schools which I experienced.

The US military bases were the authority of the land, and they played a prominent role in the economy when I was a child in the late '60s and '70s.
Culturally, Germany was like the little side-kick of the USA. We got every fashion, music and technology that the US had, but 5 years later in the cities and up to 10 years later in the country, where I grew up.
My post-baby boomer generation and the younger ones have no genuine German culture. We were completely Anglicized in everything from language to fashion, science, philosophy, entertainment, and even politics.
This influence did mainly not come from England; with the exception of things like Pink Floyd of course

[Michael Joseph]

I was born and raised in Germany and I was always under the impression that Germany was under US occupation.
Learning English was and is still mandatory for all German school children, even though England is not a popular travel destination. The languages of the countries directly adjoining Germany are not mandatory learning. Even though French is mostly taught as a third language, it is an elective and can be substituted for something else, e.g. Latin. At least that was the case in the schools which I experienced.

The US military bases were the authority of the land, and they played a prominent role in the economy when I was a child in the late '60s and '70s.
Culturally, Germany was like the little side-kick of the USA. We got every fashion, music and technology that the US had, but 5 years later in the cities and up to 10 years later in the country, where I grew up.
My post-baby boomer generation and the younger ones have no genuine German culture. We were completely Anglicized in everything from language to fashion, science, philosophy, entertainment, and even politics.
This influence did mainly not come from England; with the exception of things like Pink Floyd of course

I loved going to Germany. Taxi cab drivers are a hoot - making at that time upwards of 100k and all driving Mercedes Benz. but the best is being able to go to any vending machine, put in the appropriate coinage, and getting a cold beer. Now that's living.

[Treefarmer]

I loved going to Germany. Taxi cab drivers are a hoot - making at that time upwards of 100k and all driving Mercedes Benz. but the best is being able to go to any vending machine, put in the appropriate coinage, and getting a cold beer. Now that's living.

Yeah, when I came over here I was surprised to see candy bars in vending machines instead of cigarettes.

When I was 18 I drank some beer at a party in Alabama and walked back to my apartment with my bottle of Moosehead in hand. In the parking lot next to the police station I got arrested and those vandal cops poured out my beer!
I had no idea why they were doing this to me, because I was only doing what I had been taught in German school: if you drink, don't drive 'cause that's dangerous; be a good citizen and walk home.
I was in total culture shock