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)