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.

[Reigne]

I wrote about this very thing - not having a treaty of peace nor a proclomation from the pres after the civil war .... I did upload my book here (Civil War With No Ending) and I'd like to hear what ya'll have to say with the "solution" offered in it.

Inititally I got a good response, however, the 'good responses' were from inactive/unactive people... Please know I'm not trying to promote anything, just would like some feed-back.
Thanks.

[allodial]

Perhaps the US Department of Justice was formed in 1871 for:

'prosecution of war'

715. The Prosecution Of War

The constitutional power given to the United States to declare and wage war, whether foreign or civil, carries with it the authority to use all means calculated to weaken the enemy and to bring the struggle to a successful conclusion. When dealing with the enemy all acts that are calculated to advance this end are legal. Indeed, the President in the exercise simply of his authority as commander-in-chief of the army and navy, may, unless prohibited by congressional statute, commit or authorize acts not warranted by commonly received principles of international law; and Congress may by law authorize measures which the courts must recognize as valid even though they provide penalties not supported by the general usage of nations in the conduct of war. Thus during the Civil War in certain cases the provision by congressional statute for the confiscation of certain enemy property or land was enforced, though such confiscation was not in accordance with the general usage of foreign States.

Even in dealing with its own loyal subjects, the power to wage war enables the government to override in many particulars private rights which in time of peace are inviolable.25

The power to wage war carries with it the authority not only to bring it to a full conclusion, but, after the cessation of active military operations, to take measures to provide against its renewal. As the court says in Stewart v. Kahn:26 "The measures to be taken in carrying on war and to suppress insurrection, are not defined. The decision of all such questions rests wholly in the discretion of those to whom the substantial powers involved are confided by the Constitution. In the latter case the power is not limited to victories in the field and to the dispersion of the insurgent forces. It carries with it inherently the power to guard against the immediate renewal of the conflict, and to remedy the evils which have arisen from its rise and progress."

24 Upon this point see the very thoughtful paper of T. S. Woolsey entitled "The Beginnings of War," published in Vol. I, p. 54, of the Proceedings of the American Political Science Association.

25 For the limitations upon the war powers in this respect, see post. 2611 Wall. 493; 20 L. ed. 176.

(From: The Constitutional Law Of The United States by Westel Woodbury Willoughby)

[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.

[David Merrill]

I am not sure it will manifest that way. I find myself writing...

Crosstalk:

I find myself in mitigation of the Lieber Code. I find myself challenging proponents that we are under it today to show us any examples more prominent in everyday life than endorsement of the national debt through the Fed? In 1973 Congress formally Ended hundreds of pages of Emergency - except of course, the Secretary and Presidents' ability to call another Bankers' Holiday when the "run" on the private credit gets so bad the Fed is in immenent danger of causing widespread bank failure in America. That's a big thing so I feel that mitigating the Lieber Code may be contradictory, especially to the proponents of it.

I remember that in this 1995 Article there is talk of the Great Register and Carpetbaggers with their post-War survey.

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_METROchapter1.pdf

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_METROchapter2.pdf

http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_METROchapter3.pdf

Then this cash purchase specifying lawful money lifted a man out of the bondage of the fealty on property taxes.

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/7820/transferle1.jpg

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/8195/transferle2.jpg

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/5230/transferle3.jpg

http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/6404/transferle4.jpg

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/7144/transferle5.jpg

That escape from the fealty system escaped some folks because the fact of the Registry remains. - Leaving the question; Does the peaceful inhabitant have license plates at all? Without license plates you will be stopped by armed men inquiring about driver license and financial responsibility (insurance). Without insurance, the motor vehicle cannot be licensed or get the plates - so you can be paying an insurance policy but be jailed anyway, upon the cop's legal opinion that your insurance company will not cover you without a license...

That loop does not sound very peaceful next to being responsible, yet you do not pay the fee (fealty) as though you are a Son - the heir apparent to the original estate. All you need to do is buy your car with lawful money!


It is great to see Motla68 posting again! I really mean that. He brings things like this to light:

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.

The conscience of StSC of course being David Merrill (myself) and maybe even the derogatory Planet Merrill. I built this place alright. It was funded by a brain trust, several of whom participate as members and a few more I believe like to follow links here to read occasionally. But make no mistake, when they donated to fund a new playground to replace www.suijurisclub.net they were looking at me to lay the foundation. This last week or so, as I clicked on What's New? and saw many conversations going on without me there, I felt a sense of accomplishment; that the foundation was providing the entertainment that to me, is an echo chamber that reverberates with the brain trust to provide a better understanding of remedy.

My point is how Motla68 likes to portray me, the Conscience around here, as dictatorial - how true but for that I provide the time and effort to provide this (click here) among many other examples of reality checks. We continue to invest in the website - as you may have noticed the additions of a Downloads and Links features. We continue to provide and encourage that you all become the Conscience too - by providing support of your perspective on any matter you care to express.

Let the Authority in "dictatorship" simply be the Record. Courts of record are by definition courts that keep an accurate record. Courts of no record are contract/equity forums. They have no authority except your signature bond - already granted consent. Traffic courts are courts of no record and the first thing a police officer brings into the record (testimony) is how the defendant identified himself to be there by signature consent (on the driver license).

Therefore this discussion is very important but the boundaries are somewhat fleeting. In contesting Motla68's constant assertions that the Lieber Code is in full force and effect today, I become contradictory and hipocritical - at least I sound that way. So I try to describe some parameters like:

Motla68;

Please describe, define and cite instances of the Lieber Code being in full force and effect outside the scope of Congress ending the Emergency in 1973.

P.S. Motla68 is by no means alone - click here.

[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)

[David Merrill]

Thank you Allodial;


It shows that you understood my post. I am mitigating the Lieber Code in its original form being in express play, except through the money system. There are many Executive Branch-driven plans and plays that require federal participation (endorsement) to have effects upon people in the states. It is through the currency endorsement that these things do not seem voluntary.

A suitor pointed out:

P.S. I believe the Pres is still writing executive orders. Long after 1973.

To which I replied:

Very true. These EO's are published and may be Refused for Cause I believe, within 30 days albeit I have never done so. I don't feel they are any of my business. I might look into that further - I beleive there is a special division of the Federal Register for this function though.

I took a quick look and broadcast a couple links:

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/2011.html#13572

Perhaps its like this:

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

That may be the more useful mental model. My point being that if I felt adversely affected by an Executive Order, which is to say if I kept track of the on-base activities that might boil over, I have an opportunity to get my objection on the record - Refuse for Cause. Well; now that I know where to find them and read them, maybe I can start getting around to it.

I am thinking that the Treasury probably published the January 21, 1971 decision in the Federal Register - I don't know. The decision to stop putting more US Notes into circulation because FRNs function just as well. This matter of - placing United States notes into a new nomenclature, United States currency notes being an Act of Congress did not go through the Federal Register as I understand Public Law (page 1, page 2). But that slick sophistry is really where the boundary line of the base was breached. Defiling parity between lawful money and elastic currency with a little word, currency!

That however was requisite for Title 31 to become Positive Law - meaning that it affected the peaceful inhabitants outside the districts (base).

In the section, the words “United States currency notes” are substituted for “United States notes” for clarity and consistency in the revised title.

I am pretty certain that means it was published in the Federal Register and received no proper R4C.

I believe understanding that disconnect might make one pretty fluent about describing the survey.

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?

Something uncanny comes to mind here. Japan has a major nuclear disaster dumping radioactive iodine into the Pacific Ocean*. Germany announced its ten-year plan to completely disable its nuclear power program and was immediately hit by a nasty E-Coli outbreak that threatens the entire food supply. Well, I know that is a stretch but as easy as it would be to generate a load of infected bean sprouts, I wonder what kind of war some people think we are fighting.



Thanks for the thought and research that went into your post!




* I have made a minor investment $1/box of Pacific sea salt from before the nuclear disaster. With an lengthy half life, I can easily imagine that sea salt is a thing of the past in the world. Except maybe the Dead Sea but if you have ever tasted that you would believe me - that is no competition for high-end restaurants. I anticipate selling my boxes in two years for upwards of $50/box.

[David Merrill]

Crosstalk on the IN GOD WE TRUST trust linked above:

DM, wrote: God can make good on any agreement he goes into. Christians, in my mind identify with Israel and Judaism and that means the Laws of Moses are monetizing of sin - the animal sacrifice was an atonement process brought about by wrapping gold foil around a wooden calf and revering it for its beauty. The other component to contemplate is that Paul created the Roman Welfare State by running to Felix and accepting protective custody in Rome, where he wrote the Epistles. Romans 13 describes what Paul and I both mean to a "T".

DM what you wrote about monetizing sin caught my attention here is my take on that:

I have been reading the chronicle project http://thechronicleproject.org/pages/exo20.html and particularly like their version of the 10 commandments. The 'In God We Trust' Trust appears to be a problem in terms that God would not support such a thing and clearly states that in the new translation. From the Chronicle Project Exodus V7 (this is their interpretation of the translation): Do not exhaust the value of the name of the Ruler of all, your supreme one, to puff up your statements you are not allowed to speak my name to your statements or vows to try and advance their validity and in doing so make my name worthless.

[I interject - click here.]

Oh boy, I guess in some weird way they really did monitized sin basing money on a Trust in God that God has said "you are not allowed to speak my name to your statements or vows". Every printed FRN is an abomination to God, not only that I would think as far as the Lord is concerned their is NO trust. So we turn our SIN (breaking of GOD's commandments) into our money. Kinda twisted.

BTW, Great thread. I have been glued to it.

Be well,

True Name.

I owe a debt of gratitude for that broadcast (the brain trust echo chamber). That connected up the power of attorney God grants us as servants to fractional lending. A false weight is an abomination to the LORD, but a just weight is his delight. Proverbs 11:1. In much the same fashion, the overuse of the Name of God depreciates it too!

P.S. Within hours of my publishing my $20M lien, chief judge Kirk Stewart SAMELSON withdrew his oath. Before, After. The AG on the lien John William SUTHERS did so from the beginning of his vacant office. Does this sort of thing reflect in the monetary system? Decide for yourself.

[Trust Guy]

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