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

[Trust Guy]

[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

[allodial]

That escape from the fealty system escaped some folks because the fact of the Registry remains. - Leaving the question;

Perhaps not domestic = off-base.

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...

Does the peaceful inhabitant fly the flags of a belligerent during wartime? This is where contract law and notice comes into play. If you are not a belligerent and you're being forced to wear enemy indicia--making the intent known might be quite a good thing to do.

But then, this is where utilization of a USDOT # or signs like "NOT FOR HIRE" can come handy. However when its to the repugnant extreme that the armed agents of a State arent even competent to tell the difference between belligerents and neutrals--you might have a conspiracy against rights or even sedition on your hands...

dereliction of duty...
slavery..
peonage..

there are laws against such aint there?

[David Merrill]

You might find that the trustee's agent offers Charges?

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.]

On the example offered though;

One should pay a reasonable amount to the State for the vehicle to be registered as a motor vehicle so that law enforcement officials can determine the name of the man responsible for it upon sighting of the vehicle. That's the nature of the vehicle. It can be used to avoid a conversation/interview and that license plate is the only thing in many cases said by way of an interview.

I will try to make my point more clearly.

It logically follows that when one's vehicle is in the registry, one might stop paying the yearly fealty of the property tax. - Just pay to update the information should it change. [Paying in lawful money.]

I tried doing this - calling for a probable cause hearing when my motorscooter was taken into impound (forfeiture) for allowing the date stickers to expire. Part of that is renewal of registration, I know, but if the Information (Indictment) is unchanged, there is no cost to update nothing... Just leave the Information on me unchanged.

They took my motorscooter, sold it with the other forfeited vessels at Impound Lot auction and jailed me about not having insurance (bottomry). The results were financial alright. It became a cause for true judgment that instantly closed down the Stock Market for three days.

http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/992/beijing2.jpg

http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/2369/beijing3.jpg

This is what I am talking about. I am not denying that War and Emergency Powers exist in America. Fiat is against the Constitution except for LINCOLN's July 4, 1861 convention of Congress under the Extraordinary Occasion clause and we still have fiat today. My point is more that the difference between Martial Law and Martial Rule in America is that the sanctions of the war are commercial/financial, that infractions result in Charges.

The Bill of Exchange calls in every debt-note in existence world-wide. It still does. It is the backing for authority for every Libel of Review Default Judgment. Well, the Truth reflected in lawful money anyway. The War is the basis for the current cestui que trust.

Meaning that my claims, mostly based in my mind at the time about that Ruling, the county judge would only hear my Probable Cause Hearing after I had been fully arraigned were that since I had intentionally quit the property tax payments on the vehicle, that I was the highest holder of any title, outside the State. I was the beneficiary of the trust. I still had the motorscooter in the registry and could be located through that information. The day that I filed the local CAFR into the case with a subpoena for the City Bookkeeper to break-out the Impound Lot as a profit center, they dogged me around with the Police Helicopter!

This boundary line, the surveyed border of the belligerent, or more accurately the actual theater of war, where the constitutional protections cease; that is what I am speaking about. I was helping my pal across the border just the other day. He needed a certified copy of a case where he finally settled the charges ten years ago. But the border guards wanted a certified copy. So I was putting my recording equipment back in my pockets etc. at the courthouse security checkpoint and they attacked - bracketed - by insisting on a last name. (Attached audio snippet). I do not know, with a $20M lien going - the Security Supervisor made sure to slam my things on the table especially hard. Which actually came off very childish in front of his men. [Some of you may already know that they assign a guard to dog me around whenever I am in the courthouse and on a Monday morning, the Super can hardly afford that kind of waste of manpower.] So they attacked, as you hear, and I countered with the truth - My name is David Merrill. I deleted the part a moment later, you could just barely hear them discussing that I said my name was David Merrill, but it seemed to thwart the attack. I strongly suspect that if I would have said, I do not have a last namepeaceful inhabitant - resides in the Demand for Lawful Money.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[allodial]

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.]

Bonding...risk management. What is 'funny' is that I came across an old "Insurance Agreement"..and it was worded similarly to an indemnity bond.

One should pay a reasonable amount to the State for the vehicle to be registered as a motor vehicle so that law enforcement officials can determine the name of the man responsible for it upon sighting of the vehicle. That's the nature of the vehicle. It can be used to avoid a conversation/interview and that license plate is the only thing in many cases said by way of an interview.

Or...USDOT #..preferably not from a 'residential address'.

This is what I am talking about. I am not denying that War and Emergency Powers exist in America. Fiat is against the Constitution except for LINCOLN's July 4, 1861 convention of Congress under the Extraordinary Occasion clause and we still have fiat today. My point is more that the difference between Martial Law and Martial Rule in America is that the sanctions of the war are commercial/financial, that infractions result in Charges.

I strongly suspect that if I would have said, I do not have a last name, things would have gone differently. I would have been identified an enemy belligerent. Even if I would have issued a legal or full name by giving my family name for a last name, that would have identified me differently.

Some would suggest there is more goodness in "I'm unaware of having a last name" vs "I don't have a last name." However when you have armed folks who lack competence to tell the difference between fiction and truth...what good is their testimony? I've seen replies to questions for a last name:

"Do you need a last name? {OFFICER: YES} OK 'Jones'"

or

"Just put down 'Jones'. My name is Paul."

I am glad he still comes around and stirs this issue up because I think there is a lot to learn from this issue - My point being you can redact the entire Lieber Code, in full force and effect today, into commercial terms and anything beyond that will be utilized to label you a patriot nutjob Sovrun Citizen.

Revenue agents <- prosecution of war (USDOJ--IRS/ATF/DEA/U.S. Navy drug interdiction--all $$$$$$$ related). I suppose one could even denominate a payment in United States notes rather than just $ or "U.S. Dollars".

If you somehow lawful money should always be rendered as being 'principal' and scrip/FRNs/"Federation credits" likewise as interest--if there isn't interest involved--how can there be profit, commerce, tax or revenue-collecting?

***

If it pertains to interest/revenue/commerce then...well there are some pretty clearly defined principles or concepts of "international law" relating to belligerents and commerce. However, it might be that private creditors are not regarded as belligerents in any case.

***

And on that note... Laws of Land Warfare / "Hague Regulations" prohibit forced allegiance. By forcing you into a position suretyship for a legal entity that is intrinsically allegiant ...its a treaty violation..and likely punishable by court martial.

Art. 45.

It is forbidden to compel the inhabitants of occupied territory to swear allegiance to the hostile Power.

[ See also 18 USC 241 ]

[David Merrill]

Bonding...risk management. What is 'funny' is that I came across an old "Insurance Agreement"..and it was worded similarly to an indemnity bond.



Or...USDOT #..preferably not from a 'residential address'.



Some would suggest there is more goodness in "I'm unaware of having a last name" vs "I don't have a last name." However when you have armed folks who lack competence to tell the difference between fiction and truth...what good is their testimony? I've seen replies to questions for a last name:

"Do you need a last name? {OFFICER: YES} OK 'Jones'"

or

"Just put down 'Jones'. My name is Paul."



Revenue agents <- prosecution of war (USDOJ--IRS/ATF/DEA/U.S. Navy drug interdiction--all $$$$$$$ related). I suppose one could even denominate a payment in United States notes rather than just $ or "U.S. Dollars".

If you somehow lawful money should always be rendered as being 'principal' and scrip/FRNs/"Federation credits" likewise as interest--if there isn't interest involved--how can there be profit, commerce, tax or revenue-collecting?

***

If it pertains to interest/revenue/commerce then...well there are some pretty clearly defined principles or concepts of "international law" relating to belligerents and commerce. However, it might be that private creditors are not regarded as belligerents in any case.

***

And on that note... Laws of Land Warfare / "Hague Regulations" prohibit forced allegiance. By forcing you into a position suretyship for a legal entity that is intrinsically allegiant ...its a treaty violation..and likely punishable by court martial.



[ See also 18 USC 241 ]

Yes. Forgery.

You may have brought up the interest though - afresh. That may be new here at StSC.

Look at Deuteronomy 15:1-3 and at 23:20 both using nakar, from Noach (Noah).

Under full acceptance of the Lieber Code then, (Motla68's apparent posture) the mailman is a field scout for the Navy serving - US Postal Service - process and noting proof of service; empty mailbox the next day (through the little enclave) for the President as Executive Commander-in-Chief.

Ergo the Libel of Review; see the instructions at the end. Most of the lesson plan is to teach the new suitors how to run court on that mailbox rather than the other way around. Looking at the whole thing, it is challenging the federal judge to admit it - we become resident Noachides through that little federal enclave out front. There is no accusation that they did not file in the USDC - they have been doing it all our lives - the USDC is right there in that little enclave - the mailbox!

Being presumed Noachides, we are the foreigner and stranger in the Bible subject to that kind of usury - interest. Of course we can make our demand for lawful money known on the record and defeat the presumption.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[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.

Wikipedia)

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)

[xparte]

If a DL expires what has been expunged ITS date ITS driver ITS privilege ITS person ITS NAME ITS COMMERCE what has expired has passed, dead in law bringing a living Man to re-venue re-new your D-L OR BEGGING ANEW DEAD AND LOVING IT MEL BROOKS WORK WORK WORK CONTRACTS

[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'.