Illegitimate Federal Government and the Rule of Martial Law in the United States

reply to post by MidnightDStroyer


Thanks for sharing the info. I hope to look into it some more in the next few days, but it appears that you have reached a point where the "fringe" argument has simply become moot, as opposed to disproving its meaning as being representative of military authority.

Sort of like anyone can buy Seargeant stripes and put them on their sleeve. That much is true. This still does not change the fact though that the three chevrons still represent the rank of Sergeant, and denote such a level of authority where it is established. So it is true that the symbol is just that, a symbol, but I have yet to see where that symbol simply represents "nothing" in our courtrooms.

It should also be noted that if someone were to wear the uniform and decorations of a Seargent, without having earned or been awarded them, they would in fact be in violation of the law. No one goes after a kid with stripes pinned on his sleeve, but it is in fact illegal to wear military insignia and decoration that is not your own.

So then, I propose that if these courts are not in fact military courts, then they have falsely represented themselves as such, and that all cases heard under such venue must be dismissed/overturned.

Actually, the Constitution does provide courts do invoke a military jurisdiction...Through the Admiralty & Marine clauses in Article III. But that jurisdiction is legitimate only in cases of Maritime Law & International Law concerning war crimes & involving only military personnel.

Jack, don't take this as a rebuke on the OP behind the whole thread, because I do agree that the federal government is illegitimate...And has been since at least the Civil War. It was the influence from private banks to encourage government overspending for a war that's the key: It set the precedence for the government to continue borrowing from private banks & racking up excessive debt: The banks were backing the "industrialists" in applying pressures put to the "agricultural" States & goaded them into succession from the government: The banks were goading for some kind of war to bring the Confederate States back into the government: The banks are those who had the most to gain by reaping the profits during war.

This was the point where the government stepped off the path that was set by the Founding Forefathers & the Constitutional Oaths of Office. This was the point when the government stopped defending freedom & started on the path to tyranny through a system of democracy that was originally limited by the Constitution.
"Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies." -- Thomas Jefferson
"Creditors have better memories than debtors." -- Ben Franklin
"He that is of the opinion money will do everything may well be suspected of doing everything for money." -- Ben Franklin
"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from the downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation." -- John Adams

Lincoln was probably quite aware of what the banks were doing, but may have felt that the Nation was being backed into a corner...He tried to warn us.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." -- Abraham Lincoln
"I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts." -- Abraham Lincoln
"These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people." -- Abraham Lincoln
And, although I haven't been able to confirm any sources for this quote, I've heard somewhere that he also said, "I have the Confederate Army in front of me & I have the banks behind me. Of the two, the banks are more dangerous."

Even so, he still looked towards a positive future:
"The people will save their government, if the government itself will allow them." -- Abraham Lincoln

[edit on 22-8-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

reply to post by MidnightDStroyer


No, I fully understand where you are coming from. The truth is the truth, and I can accept that. I am still not convinced about the "gold fringe" thing though, but I must admit it's not looking good for my "side" on that specific topic. Gonna have to do more study and thinking on it.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
No, I fully understand where you are coming from. The truth is the truth, and I can accept that.

I used to think the same thing until I did more digging into the info by people more "expert" than I in a given topic...But I've always been willing to "adjust my thinking" as I learn more. I've forgotten how many times I've posted something like "Oooops!...My bad!" when I've been caught!
I try to keep in mind something quoted from Will Rogers..."Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects."

And here's one (Will Rogers again) that keeps me mostly focused on law & government...Which is why I initially fell short on the topic of flags:
"About all I can say for the United States Senate is that it opens with a prayer and closes with an investigation."

reply to post by jackinthebox


Great thread jack, Flag'd & Star'd, Star'd, Star'd!!!!!!!

I'm impressed with your eloquent presentation here, and crying at the
content.

I've been trying to say something similar to this, since the mid-eighties,
but ended up being arrested by the au6th6or6ities, and worse, treated as
a code "5150" (psychiatric observation)!

Wish I possessed your skills with vocabulary, might have helped save us
from this commi-fascist corporatocracy tyrannical dictatorship 20 years
ago!

Had to suspend my rhetoric for awhile, at least anywhere in public, cause
I'd rather be free to "post" on the internet here, than be forced down a
dark hallway, being forcibly drugged, stripped, labled, processed, charged,
imprisoned, chained, transported, embarrassed, paroled, probated, and
treated like I was a threat, AGAIN!

reply to post by FRIGHTENER

You should read the whole thread. I have proved there are so many holes in his theory it is insane. His whole basis for this theory was proven wrong. I hate when people just read the first page and blindly believe things. Talk about sheep.

reply to post by tide88

His whole basis for this theory was proven wrong.

Not quite. I admit that you have made a good run at it, but nothing has been proven one way or the other. Opinions are not facts.

The closest you have come to "victory" was on the flag issue, which is really not directly realted to the topic anyhow.

But please, by all means, read through the thread and decide for yourselves fellow members. Do you believe my premise based on the facts that I have presented, or do you trust "expert" and not-so-expert statements as fact?

The Supreme Court overturned Linclon's Maritial Law the year after the end of the Civil War.

"On September 15, 1863, Lincoln imposed Congressionally-authorized martial law. The authorizing act allowed the President to suspend habeas corpus throughout the entire United States.. Lincoln imposed the suspension on "prisoners of war, spies, or aiders and abettors of the enemy," as well as on other classes of people, such as draft dodgers. The President's proclamation was challenged in ex parte Milligan (71 US 2 [1866]). The Supreme Court ruled that Lincoln's imposition of martial law (by way of suspension of habeas corpus) was unconstitutional."
www.usconstitution.net...

reply to post by crimvelvet

Ruling the President's actions un-Constitutional and restoring a Constitutional government are two seperate things though. The ruling had no effect on what had already been done.

I happen to agree with Supreme Court, it was un-Constitutional. But nothing of substance was ever done about it.

reply to post by jackinthebox


Again as I have already proven congress met under congressional authority. You claim that congress meets under presidential orders today and has since linclon decalred Martial Law, however that is completely false and has been proven on previous pages.

reply to post by tide88


The President has every right to call Congress to meet. That is not in dispute.

reply to post by jackinthebox


yes but you claim that congress has met under the presidents executive orders since the civil war, which is false.

On the 27th of March in 1861 Congress adjourned “sin die,” or “without day,” no longer having the required quorum under the Constitution. In other words, having lost the delegates of the seceding states, Congress no longer had the minimum number of required persons to lawfully conduct any official business, except to set a date to reconvene, under Article One of the Constitution. They did not set a date to reconvene, and as a result many have argued that the Congress of the United States of America was thereby dissolved. There are also those who argue that only Congress itself would have the authority to dissolve the body permanently. I find the argument to be moot. The fact is, that the Congress of the United States of America has never reconvened “de jure,” or “by law.” Instead, they have operated by Proclamation of the President of the United States, as shown here, in what is often referred to as Executive Order One.... As stated in this document, both houses of Congress were ordered to reconvene, by President Lincoln, without the quorum required by the Constitution. The order is dated two days after the surrender of Fort Sumter by Union forces, in South Carolina, and remains in effect to this day.

These statements are completlly untrue and I have proven so. Everyone should review the all thirteen pages and come to their own conclusions. This is what Jack bases most of his argument on. Once this falls apart, so does the rest of his theory.

reply to post by tide88


Well, they certainly have never met under Constitutional Congressional authority. The convened Congresses from there forward are usurpers.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by tide88

 

Well, they certainly have never met under Constitutional Congressional authority. The convened Congresses from there forward are usurpers.

That is fine, although that is mearly an opinion on your part. Maybe you should rework your whole theory. Your theory is based on supposed facts that are infact false. There are more holes in your theory then swiss cheese.

reply to post by tide88

That is fine, although that is mearly an opinion on your part.

Not quite. I may be incorrect, but I have yet to see the proof of that. All the evidence that I have seen and shared shows that the legitimate Congress for the United States disbanded, never again to reconvene in accordance with their own parliamentary rules or the Constitution. But instead select members of that former Congress came together under Presidential decree and carried out business which was not within their scope of power.

reply to post by jackinthebox


Congress never disbanded and has reconvened under congression law. They adjourned with the required quorum. I have already gone over this and posted evidence to back it up, including the actual roll call and transcripts from the times you are talking about. I understand that you refuse to believe it and seeing we have already debated this specific topic I think everyone who reads this should read the all the pages and come to their own conclusion.

double post

[edit on 10-9-2008 by tide88]

reply to post by tide88

...I think everyone who reads this should read the all the pages and come to their own conclusion.

Agreed then. You and I will agree to disagree and allow the other members to see what has been posted.

reply to post by jackinthebox


I agree. Hope all is well with your health or at the very least improving.

[edit on 10-9-2008 by tide88]

Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by FRIGHTENER

I have proved there are so many holes in his theory it is insane. His whole basis for this theory was proven wrong. I hate when people just read the first page and blindly believe things. Talk about sheep.

That hate's gonna burn you up!
Jack's theory is sound. If the usurpers ever focus their control issues on
YOU; you will understand their insanity very clearly.
I've never just read a first page, then posted, so the whole basis of your
theory has been proven wrong!
Myself and tooooo many of my friends have been victims of this police
state, for me to "blindly" believe anything.

Talk about constipated types!




[edit on 9/12/2008 by FRIGHTENER]