Grand Army of the Republic newly created in Maine

a reply to: eriktheawful

My point was they did exactly hold a majority in congress to declare such a drastic descion

It was still done outside the legal framework.



I know my history quite well thank you.

a reply to: crazyewok

Its only invalid to shills. I'm pretty sure the word is english and its use doesn't invalidate anything. Provide some sort of evidence these people are backwoods bearded rubes or stop makin unsubstantiated claims. Stop making it seem like people who disagree with the status quo have to fit some cookie cutter mold. I agree this could all be the work of some wierdo. I want it to be legit though. That is the line that seperates the two of us. Im patient enough to wait for it to be proven bogus before running off at the mouth. Trying to discredit people with no facts sounds like hardcore shilling. As I said before. He's not asking anyone to be an active participant, so all we have to do is sit back and watch. Maybe unlike yourself everyone doesnt want to sit and wait for the world to descend totally into chaos to try to do what needs to be done. How bout you use that big brain of yours to do some investigating and help us shed some light on the subject instead of being so abrasive. Just a thought.

a reply to: EyesOpenMouthShut

Hardly rocket science.

Its not even military tactics but basic common sense.

Why act now when the feds will crush you when you can wait a few more years until the next finicial crisis and have a better advantage.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: eriktheawful

My point was they did exactly hold a majority in congress to declare such a drastic descion

It was still done outside the legal framework.



I know my history quite well thank you.

Nope. So far your point has been to insult and offend certain types of people here in the US ("White men with beards").

Then you tried to say that the it was just everyday common people, and not elected officials that created the confederacy in the first American Civil War.

Wrong again. It was the elected officials that decided to leave the union and vacated their seats in congress.

Would you like me to lecture you on your county's history and get it all wrong? Or start making insults about certain types of people that live in your country?

I'm pretty sure you'd get upset about that too.

originally posted by: rustyclutch
a reply to: crazyewok

Its only invalid to shills. I'm pretty sure the word is english and its use doesn't invalidate anything. Provide some sort of evidence these people are backwoods bearded rubes or stop makin unsubstantiated claims. Stop making it seem like people who disagree with the status quo have to fit some cookie cutter mold. I agree this could all be the work of some wierdo. I want it to be legit though. That is the line that seperates the two of us. Im patient enough to wait for it to be proven bogus before running off at the mouth. Trying to discredit people with no facts sounds like hardcore shilling. As I said before. He's not asking anyone to be an active participant, so all we have to do is sit back and watch. Maybe unlike yourself everyone doesnt want to sit and wait for the world to descend totally into chaos to try to do what needs to be done. How bout you use that big brain of yours to do some investigating and help us shed some light on the subject instead of being so abrasive. Just a thought.

And you will lose.

You dont strike when your enemy has the advantage, you strike when hes weak.

originally posted by: eriktheawful

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: eriktheawful

My point was they did exactly hold a majority in congress to declare such a drastic descion

It was still done outside the legal framework.



I know my history quite well thank you.

Nope. So far your point has been to insult and offend certain types of people here in the US ("White men with beards").

Then you tried to say that the it was just everyday common people, and not elected officials that created the confederacy in the first American Civil War.

Wrong again. It was the elected officials that decided to leave the union and vacated their seats in congress.

Would you like me to lecture you on your county's history and get it all wrong? Or start making insults about certain types of people that live in your country?

I'm pretty sure you'd get upset about that too.

I never said anything of the sort infact (point out were I said it was just the common people?)a few posts before I even pointed out you need a few SANE politcians on your side.

All my comment in refrence to the confeds were there sucession was not done in therory legaly but it didnt stop them

So stop twisting what I saw by adding thing I did not say!


Comment all you like.

Best ones to pick on are chavs in the UK our white trash. Us brits will have good laugh with you.

God and they call us brits uptight!

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: eriktheawful

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: eriktheawful

My point was they did exactly hold a majority in congress to declare such a drastic descion

It was still done outside the legal framework.



I know my history quite well thank you.

Nope. So far your point has been to insult and offend certain types of people here in the US ("White men with beards").

Then you tried to say that the it was just everyday common people, and not elected officials that created the confederacy in the first American Civil War.

Wrong again. It was the elected officials that decided to leave the union and vacated their seats in congress.

Would you like me to lecture you on your county's history and get it all wrong? Or start making insults about certain types of people that live in your country?

I'm pretty sure you'd get upset about that too.

I never said anything of the sort infact (point out were I said it was just the common people?)a few posts before I even pointed out you need a few SANE politcians on your side.

All my comment in refrence to the confeds were there sucession was not done in therory legaly but it didnt stop them

So stop twisting what I saw by adding thing I did not say!


Comment all you like.

Best ones to pick on are chavs in the UK our white trash. Us brits will have good laugh with you.

God and they call us brits uptight!

Back on page 4 your comment about anyone who has a beard, certain type of jacket or what type of home they live in.

Glad to see that you don't judge anyone based on those things (eye roll)

Then when a member posted here about how our founding fathers were not in fact just some guys sitting around, but appointed officials, you made your comment on that post here that the start of the confederacy was made by people who were not in fact officials in charge (which was wrong).

Not twisting your words, just correcting your statement about our history....which was wrong. Try again.

Oh, and how about debating about things without having to make comments on people's facial hair preferences, clothing...where what type of homes they live in......don't really see why you need to bring things like that into this type of conversation......

Unless of course you've passed judgement of people like that.

a reply to: eriktheawful

Im not debating I passed judgment of a certain group. I did, not ashamed of it and not denying.


What im calling into queastion was your false claim on telli g what I said about the confeds.

I never said it was just ordinary people, still waiting on my direct words, not what you think are implied words but direct words.

To reliterate although it did have a selection of elected politcians the sucession was still not legal, in therory.


I know what I said, if you failed to misunderstand it even though I have tried to expain in 3 times thats your damed proble m noe as you obviously take some twisted pleasure on changeing peoples words to suite there own twisted ideas.

I believe this "Press Release" that announces a Grand Army of the Republic is an attempt to return to traditional, historical Common Law.

It says that this army is under the leadership of General Carter F. Ham who is under the guidance of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and with their full support

So, according to this Press Release, this Army has the full support of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) is a body of senior uniformed leaders in the United States Department of Defense who advise the Secretary of Defense, the Homeland Security Council, the National Security Council and the President of the United States on military matters (wikipedia).

If this army has the full support of the JCS, then perhaps it is the executive branch itself that has found a loophole to legally constitute this army by reverting to common law.

Common Law and Civil Law

The Historical Origins of Common and Civil Law Systems

The original source of the common law system can be traced back to the English monarchy, which used to issue formal orders called “writs” when justice needed to be done. Because writs were not sufficient to cover all situations, courts of equity were ultimately established to hear complaints and devise appropriate remedies based on equitable principles taken from many sources of authority (such as Roman law and “natural” law). As these decisions were collected and published, it became possible for courts to look up precedential opinions and apply them to current cases. And thus the common law developed.

Civil law in other European nations, on the other hand, is generally traced back to the code of laws compiled by the Roman Emperor Justinian around 600 C.E. Authoritative legal codes with roots in these laws (or others) then developed over many centuries in various countries, leading to similar legal systems, each with their own sets of laws.

In this case, the aforementioned "writ" could simply be the Press Release itself. This press release is making some very loaded statements, and I hope everyone who is commenting on it actually read it.

Also, here is a description of the career of General Ham:

He has held a variety of positions to include Recruiting Area Commander; Battalion Executive Officer at the National Training Center; Advisor to the Saudi Arabian National Guard Brigade; Commander, 1st Battalion, 6th Infantry; Chief of Staff, 1st Infantry Division; Commander, 29th Infantry Regiment; commander, Multi-National Brigade, Mosul, Iraq; Commander, 1st Infantry Division; Director for Operations, J-3, The Joint Staff, Washington, DC.

Now does that sound like a gun-hoarding back-woodsman to you?

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: eriktheawful

Im not debating I passed judgment of a certain group. I did, not ashamed of it and not denying.


What im calling into queastion was your false claim on telli g what I said about the confeds.

I never said it was just ordinary people, still waiting on my direct words, not what you think are implied words but direct words.

To reliterate although it did have a selection of elected politcians the sucession was still not legal, in therory.


I know what I said, if you failed to misunderstand it even though I have tried to expain in 3 times thats your damed proble m noe as you obviously take some twisted pleasure on changeing peoples words to suite there own twisted ideas.

:shrug:

I did not twist your words. Anyone reading the links I provided can clearly see that you were not debating the legality of the southern states leaving the union, but rather what type of people make and take bold actions.

In any case, I'm done here. You've just admitted that you are quite biased against certain people based upon what they look like or where they live, instead of what they have to say.

The Sheriff is one role that is important with how any federal resistance plays out. It is an elected position and responsible for the application of laws in that state. Without support their options are limited.

If enough people rise up it doesnt matter what the legality of the situation is. All that matters is who comes out on top.

a reply to: crazyewok

The enemy is weak. The economy is failing and they are slowly positioning their pieces for the end game. Continuing to sit back idly and ignore what is going on is exactly what we SHOULDN'T be doing. At this very moment our southern border is being flooded with immigrants some of whom are carrying infectious diseases. Our elected officials are going around the world trying to bring the world to the brink of WW3. Our financiers are plundering and manipulating the economy. Peoples life savings are worth less everyday. The world is starting to hate us. How long should we wait? Till the collapse they have engineered begins?

There's a lot of water separating our countries. You might get the news but you havent seen with your own eyes and experienced how the United States has changed. A regular guy like me standing up doesnt have a shot in the world. Someone like General Ham with the backing of other people in the government does. Someone is going to have to stand up from within. And more than likely it will be in the military because we all know the president and congress are already paid for. IF this is true I support it. Its easy for someone to say what they would or wouldnt do from the outside looking in. Step back and think for a second though. If they didnt release some sort of statement with evidence and other things backing them up and just immediately started a civil war....how legitimate would they seem? Right now they are just asking all the alphabet boys to stand down. Of course it wont happen. In the meantime sit back and pop some popcorn. It's about to start getting interesting here in the states I'm sure.

originally posted by: antoinemarionette
I believe this "Press Release" that announces a Grand Army of the Republic is an attempt to return to traditional, historical Common Law.

It says that this army is under the leadership of General Carter F. Ham who is under the guidance of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and with their full support

So, according to this Press Release, this Army has the full support of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

So that means we should be expecting a press release from the JCS any day now? Maybe their public affairs officer forgot it was a holiday weekend, so they're going to push it out Monday.

If this army has the full support of the JCS, then perhaps it is the executive branch itself that has found a loophole to legally constitute this army by reverting to common law.

I thought the Constitution gave Congress the power to raise armies. Are you saying the Executive Branch can now snap its fingers and create a standing army without Congressional assent? That is a remarkable assumption of power.

In this case, the aforementioned "writ" could simply be the Press Release itself.

I think a writ is a writ, and a press release is a press release. I am not a lawyer, but it is my understanding that one is a legal instrument signed by a judge, and the other is an announcement from a PR person.

Also, here is a description of the career of General Ham:

snip

Now does that sound like a gun-hoarding back-woodsman to you?

No, but it doesn't sound like he is actually involved in this, either.

Has anyone even confirmed if General Ham had anything to do with the statement?

I would be real surprised if he did. It only takes one person to write up such a statement and send it off.

I would think at a site that is about Denying Ignorance people would be questioning the validity of such claims more than they are.

There are a lot of things in that release that do not make a whole hell of a lot of sense.


I looked up the publisher David E. Robinson of Maine seems to be selling books and my money is on this being a ploy to sell more.

After reading over the release a few times it looks more to me like David E. Robinson has taken it upon himself to nominate General Carter F. Ham to lead his Grand Ole Army. My question is why are people buying into the claims of a guy that seems to be a nut job? Never-mind that question...I have sen people eat up much nuttier things on here thats what makes ATS so fun sometimes.

Carry on.

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
If enough people rise up it doesnt matter what the legality of the situation is. All that matters is who comes out on top.

Yes, and we can all see how much the people want to rise up...Remember "Operation American Spring"? They claimed to be getting 10-30 million people at a protest in Washington, with 1 million to stay.

They got 1-2 thousand, quickly dwindling to 10-30 people (and a dog!)

Movements like this nonsense only work if the people want change, in the USA they do not.

a reply to: rustyclutch

I agree with your summation and there is a real possibility that this is actually happening in just the way you laid out.


Who can deny that this is the situation in the US today?


Why would a man with a history like General Ham allow his name to be used in such a declaration?

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: Bilk22
a reply to: defcon5
I agree with all you've said so far, but there are elected officials not following the laws. So it is apparently always open to interpretation. The Constitution, via the 2nd A provides for the idea that "the people" are "enabled" to enforce the laws when those empowered to do so fail to do so. Maybe someone has been reading the Constitution and decided it's almost time to use that "right"?

Random dude on the street is not empowered to decide what is or is not Constitutional, that is left the courts. As for the Grand Army of the Republic? One wonders why anybody bothers even reading these things. At this point they have been wrong/scams/fakes so many times it is not hard to figure out that end results will be nothing.

Just as anyone serving in the military is required by oath to follow orders, when those orders conflict with the laws of the land and the Constitution, they can and may decline to serve those orders and instead arrest those issuing them. Then as you said, the courts can sort it out. I don't see a difference here.

originally posted by: antoinemarionette
Why would a man with a history like General Ham allow his name to be used in such a declaration?

Any proof he is even aware of it?

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: Bilk22

Man you are reading a lot into that one sentence amendment.

a LOT!

So what do you get from this? Especially the "free state" part.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.