Bush Will Not Declare Martial Law, The USA Economy Will Not Completly Collapse

reply to post by tide88


People on ATS have routinely abused what a corporation means. They use it as a synonym for "big business" to appeal to the populist crowd on here. However, all governments have been and always will be corporations ever since the legal system began getting more efficient and effective.

A corporation simply means that for the purposes of a court, an organization becomes a legal person that may be sued. This is so that I can sue the government, and not have to drag every single person in the US government into trial. It is also so that I do not have to find immediate cause when bringing suit - if the IRS forces me to pay more taxes than I am entitled and will not issue me a refund, I can sue without having to investigate exactly what person in the IRS is actually responsible for charging me wrong.

It also protects the assets of the members of the corporation, which is a good thing because no one is going to work for an organization if they know their assets can be seized every time the organization is brought to court. I am a government employee, I would never work for the government - nor would anyone else - if I thought that the government could be sued and my personal money be taken away because of it. I am protected by the legal entity of the corporation.

There is nothing sinister behind it, its a legal device. Nor does corporation mean "big business," which is what most people are using it for on ATS.

[edit on 17-7-2008 by ALightinDarkness]

reply to post by ALightinDarkness

I am a government employee, and would never work for the government - nor would anyone else - if I thought that the government could be sued and my personal money be taken away because of it. I am protected by the legal entity of the corporation.

And that is exactly why abuses of power and complacent ineffeciency are rampant. Take the police for example. They are protected from being held personally accountable for getting the address wrong and shooting some grandmother dead in her own bed in the middle of the night. Too many innocents pay the price.

reply to post by jackinthebox


First, before we continue into this, I want to know exactly how many people showed up and what percent they were of the remaining states. If it was 50% or more of the states still in the union at the time, it would constitute a quorum because the section states:

"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide."

If the body itself it the judge on what constitutes a return of its members, then it is within their constitutional authority to declare what constitutes a quorum of remaining members.

I have contacted a constitutional lawyer, whom resides at the School of Government at the University of North Carolina, and asked him about whether or not an exercise of the emergency power of calling congress together requires an adherence to another part of the constitution that addresses how congress is to meet. He told me the President's exercise of the power did not require a quorum since the quorum only applied to Congress when it met of its own accord. As this is a ex-professor of mine I don't want to go throwing his name and resume out there because hes busy and don't want him bombarded with questions, but I'll give you his contact info if you PM me.

The President is required to respect the outcomes of other parts of the constitution, but is not required to act by any section except his own. Nor is any other branch. If this were the case, the language would have been different. Article III applies only to the actions of the Congress when the Congress starts a meeting. The President called the meeting using power from a different article.

And again, in any case, all of this is moot because as soon as Congress met again things were back to normal. Unless you can find evidence that Congress never closed session after that time - which means the entire Congressional record is lying.

And that is exactly why what we have today is allowed to continue. Blisfully unaware we have become, and complacent to boot.

This makes no sense. What would be materially different about the way the government operates today if you were right? What differences would have to happen? Since everyone in the government operates as if none of this ever happened, and everyone believes the constitution is in force, what would be the difference?

[edit on 17-7-2008 by ALightinDarkness]

reply to post by jackinthebox


Any action a government employee takes on his or her own, or that represents gross misconduct, makes them personally liable. However, I can not be sued because you don't like something my department did - if I could - then there would be no one in government. The legal entity of a corporation is required if you want any level of government to exist.

[edit on 17-7-2008 by ALightinDarkness]

reply to post by ALightinDarkness

First, before we continue into this, I want to know exactly how many people showed up and what percent they were of the remaining states.

Okay, if we are going to continue on this, let's do so in a thread specifically dedicated to this topic alone. Please feel free to read through the material there and then post your questions or comments...

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

reply to post by ALightinDarkness

Any action a government employee takes on his or her own, or that represents gross misconduct, makes them personally liable.

In rare instances I suppose.

However, I can not be sued because you don't like something my department did - if I could - then there would be no one in government.

If you manage that department, you should be held accountable to some degree.

The legal entity of a corporation is required if you want any level of government to exist.

Perhaps, perhaps not. One this seems quite cleat though, where the line has been drawn today is nowhere near a suitable level of accountability.

reply to post by jackinthebox

One more thing about the civil war never officially ending. You remeber when the professor I email stated it was never a declared war. Well I also found this little tidbit on wiki : The American Civil War was not a true war in the sense that the Union Government held the position that secession from the Union was illegal and military force was used to restore the union by defeating in battle the military forces of the illegally rebelling states. No Southern ambassador or diplomat was accorded any status by the Union so an armistice or peace treaty was never an option because that would legitimize the Confederacy as an actual Nation. The legal right for armed force lay with the Constitution of the United States, which the Union interpreted as unbreakable. The actions of the Southern states were therefore illegal (according to the Union) because they were attempting to drop the Union as their form of Government, which is considered rebellion or insurrection. en.wikipedia.org...

There was never a war. War was never declared. NOTE this line: an armistice or peace treaty was never an option because that would legitimize the Confederacy as an actual Nation That is why there was never anything signed to state that the war was over. And that is why that professor claimed the war was never declared. That pretty much should end the debate that the civil war never ended.

reply to post by jackinthebox


I looked through your post and did not see anything mentioning the actual numbers of people who attended and their percent in terms of states that wanted to remain in the union. As such, and given that all of this can be easily explained by narrow ruling striking down parts of Executive Order 1 by the Supreme Court, combined with the opinion of a constitutional lawyer that any president can summon Congress without a quorum in any sense, I have nothing more to say about this. The evidence to me clearly shows there is no martial law, and the constitution is and has been in full effect. If you come up with more new evidence in that thread, then I will respond.

Regarding government as a corporation: Government managers are held responsible, but you cannot directly sue them for the reasons I just stated - no one would work for government. However, every time the government is found wrong of doing something through a lawsuit suing the corporation, I have never seen management go unpunished.

As you have provided nothing to make me believe that there is not enough accountability, all I have to say is that to me its quite clear that the government is more than accountable enough with its corporation, and without one you would have no government of any size because no one in their right mind would work for it.

reply to post by tide88


Please, please, read through the material in the thread that I posted. I did more than read Wiki to make the presentation. (I don't mean that to sound like I'm picking a fight.) There is a lot of info there, including what you have just posted.

reply to post by ALightinDarkness


Pertaining to corporations,
I'm going to give a Canadian example, but the same scam operaters in the US.
In Canada our Canadian bill of rights says

Every law of Canada shall unless it is expressly declared by an act of the parlement of canada that it shall operate not withstanding the canadian bill of rights,be so construed and applied as not to abrogate abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgement or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared.

What does this mean?... unless you go inside a statute and you find in prescribed form that it is allowed to infringe on your human rights you can safely assume that the statue does not apply to you because it dos,nt say it's allowed to infringe on your rights.

This is why within statutes you get another name like driver,taxpayer , officer etc these are tied to your capitalized name(you signed). You must establish when the judge asks you if your JOHN DOE you'll want to see the paper he's reading it from and make sure your establish that your the natural person John Doe .
The legal maxim- Omis privatio est homo, sed non vicissim
Translation
Every person is a man but not every man is a person.
The duality of Person (Blackstone's commentaries page 123)
Persons also are divided by the law into either natural persons or artificial
Natural persons- are such as God of nature formed us.
Artificial Persons - are such as are created and devised by human laws (eg taxpayer, driver, officer within statutes) for the puposes of society and governmet which are called corporations or body politics.
You've been set up as a artificial person within the statue, you agreed to by signing for your license, SSC you have even signed away your rights for custody of your children. You must establish your natural person standing within statues.This can be confusing , but as an artificial person within these statutes your bill of rights does not apply.Your sucked into these statues by the benefit/carrot they dangle. This is the whole reason for the capitalization.
Here are the three different levels of status you will have seen all three likley in your travels through life so far. followed by how you contract with them.

John Doe - Capitis Diminutio Minima

The lowest or least comprehensisive degree of loss of status.This occurred where a man's family relations alone were changed.

It happened upon the arrogation (pride) of a person who had been his own master (surjuris) ( of his own right, not under any legal disability)

It left the rights of liberty and citizenship unaltered.

________________________________________________________________________________

You are a soveriegn a country of your own under CD minima until you "plug in" to the legal system or social contract ie Bill of rights (Canada)
________________________________________________________________________________

John DOE - Capitis Diminutio Media

A lesser or medium loss of status this occured where a man loses his rightsof citizenship, but without losing his liberty. It carried away also the family rights.

________________________________________________________________________________

JOHN DOE - Capitis Diminutio Maxima

The highest or most comprehensive loss of status. This occured when a man's conditionwas changed from one of freedom to one of bondage,
when he became a slave . It swept away with it all rights of citizenship and all family rights.

________________________________________________________________________________

Rules are made to be boken however,

Federal interpretations act common names,

#38. The name commonly applied to any country , place , body, corporation, society, officer functionary, person, party or thing means the country..(same as former list)..party or thing to which the name is not the formalor extended designation thereof.

So.. the formal name formation dos'nt matter until you get into contracts. If you are trying to find out if it's a natural or artificial person you must find the source of creation of the name. OK?
_________________________________________________________________________________

Joinder of a natural and artificial person

What is a Joinder?

Joinder - Joining or coupling together uniting two or more constituents or elements in one, uniting another person in some legal step or proceeding union concurrence.

How must occur?

Voluntary , Unconstrained by interferance unimpelled by another's influence spontanious acting on ones self. Proceeding from the free and unrestricted will of the person.

Why must it be Voluntary?

Universal declaration of human rights Dec 10 1948

Article 4

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all there forms.

How can it occur?

TACIT

Tacit consent is consent iferred from the fact that the party kept silence when he had an oppurtunity to forbid or refuse.

or if you did'nt say no you said yes.

Tacit Acceptance - In cival law a tacit acceptance of an inheritance (position) takes place when some act is done by the heir which nessesarily supposes his intention to accept and which he would have no right to do, but in his capacity as heir (person)

Anyone who tries to tell capitalization in insignificant is either a liar or just dos'nt know any better and in some cases both.

One last thing 87% of people create their beliefs based on the opinion of others,while 13% use deductive reasoning.

reply to post by ALightinDarkness

...combined with the opinion of a constitutional lawyer that any president can summon Congress without a quorum in any sense...

I have already stated that Lincoln had every right to summon Congress. But without the quorum, they are powerless to act, with extremely limited exception.

I'll see what I can dig up about the specific delegates who were present, and notifiy you.

As you have provided nothing to make me believe that there is not enough accountability, all I have to say is that to me its quite clear that the government is more than accountable enough with its corporation, and without one you would have no government of any size because no one in their right mind would work for it.

Start with the threads on police abuses. Oh, I almost forgot about this one. No one died in this case, but how's this for red-tape...?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by jackinthebox


I just read it and you have done some real good work there. However nothing I read proves that we are still under martial law today and have been since 1863. I can see your interpretation and it is not completly out of whack. I just don't interpret it the same way. I am far from an expert on the constitution and the civil war, that is why I emailed an expert on the war. This is a guy who has spent his whole life studying and writing books on the subject. He says the war is over. Ended. That in fact war was never declared. The fact that an expert on the civil war agrees with me is enough for me to believe that the so called war has indeed ended. Now if you can get an expert on the civil war,(and not some random guy who claims to be an expert) then I would consider your side.

reply to post by jackinthebox


Again..the President can call Congress without a quorum. None is required when he calls it.

ATS is known as being vehemently anti-police, it comes with the populist territory. I would highly question the validity of ATS threads in terms of their generalizability. Of course their are bad police, that does not mean all police are evil or that they are evil because the government is a corporation. In fact, a corporation provides no protection from criminal liability - which is the type of liability police abuse falls under. In the thread you cited I don't see anything unusual.

Oh, and swingarm: We've been through this before. In fact, you copied and pasted the exact same stuff. Anyone who wants the truth on government as a corporation can read my thread on it: www.abovetopsecret.com... where swingarm previously attempted this. Also, something which should be obvious here: why would the government make some elaborate system to screw you when it was as easy as "denying your john doe status" or any of the other made up stuff to get out of it? And of course, there are no legal citations for any of this - it starts with a out of context Black law's dictionary quote about corporations and then completely makes the rest up.

[edit on 17-7-2008 by ALightinDarkness]

reply to post by tide88

I am far from an expert on the constitution and the civil war, that is why I emailed an expert on the war. This is a guy who has spent his whole life studying and writing books on the subject.

Okay, I took a peek at his "resume." Looks like he has indeed written a lot of books. Ever heard the expression, "history is written by the victor"? Intentionally or not, he is a propogandist. Now if you, or he, or anyone else can show me facts which refute my premise, I will consider them. But I am not going to take someone elses word for it just because they have a degree or have written a lot of books. Perhaps the expert himself should have a look at the material I have presented.

He says the war is over.

From a certain point of view, it is. Specifically, militarily. I will even go so far to say that even if all that has happened since the Civil War were to be undone, then the Confederate States would likely to choose to remain loyal to the Union in the modern day. If history had turned out differently, and the Confederacy had achieved victory, they may have even re-joined the Union by now. But the fact remains that there is a terrible wrong that has never been corrected, and we pay for it today at the cost of our own liberty as sovereigns.

That in fact war was never declared. The fact that an expert on the civil war agrees with me is enough for me to believe that the so called war has indeed ended.

Well, that's just doublespeak really. If you look at it from one perspective, you have to follow on that path without comparing apples and oranges. Either there was a war or there wasn't. I agree with the expert in that fighting has ceased.

reply to post by jackinthebox


Okay, let me rephrase that. The war isnt over because there never was a war. The rebellion is over. It was never a war. It was a rebellion or uprising. Also I am trying to be taken seriously. If I was to ask that guy to visit a conspiracy site I probably would have never recieved a response. Like it or not he would of just laughed it off. As far as he know it was just two friends having a disagreement. Which would give him no reason to spread propaganda. Look at his response. It was almost as if he was laughing while he was writing it. You notice how shot he was. And look at his last statement "your friend is wrong about everything!" notice the exclaimation. I believe he would know if the civil war has ended or not


[edit on 17-7-2008 by tide88]

reply to post by tide88

Okay, let me rephrase that. The war isnt over because there never was a war. The rebellion is over. It was never a war. It was a rebellion or uprising.

Only from the perspective of the victorious invaders, the Union. To the Confederacy, and legally speaking under the Constitution, it was a legitimate secession that was blocked militarily and never completed.

reply to post by ALightinDarkness

Again..the President can call Congress without a quorum. None is required when he calls it.

(sigh)

Sure he can call them, but there is nothing that they can do when they convene unless they have a quorum.

I just email another person who's fields of Expertise are: Constitutional law, First Amendment, Supreme Court and the Constitution, privacy law, press and the Constitution. I asked his opinion on the matter. If he gets back to me I will post. I have asked for his insight on your other post.
"United States of America’s Constitution, as prescribed by the nation’s founders, no longer has direct authority, and that the nation operates under a declared state of martial law. While it is true that the Constitution is referenced, and still alive in spirit to some extent, it is also true that it no longer binds effective governance in legitimacy."
I also have asked him about the supreme courts authority during martial law. Since you claim they had no authority to overrule Lincolns Martial law. Almost tempted to give him a link to your article but I want to get him to take me seriously. I doubt he will if I link it to the ATS website. However this time after he answers I will email him the link. Maybe we will get lucky and he will actually review your arguments.

[edit on 17-7-2008 by tide88]

reply to post by jackinthebox


Oh jack....the guy has a Ph.D. in the matter and it is usually academics who go against institutional history. If this guy doesn't have the qualifications to answer this, who does? I don't know how someone could possible more qualified on the matter.

Academics absolutely love when they get to go against the grain and propose a paradigm shift. I just worked over 2 years on a theory of economic development that completely upsets a current theory which everyone is using. If there were evidence that even suggested this was true which could stand on its own under peer review, you couldn't stop academics from getting to the printing presses fast enough and proclaiming a new paradigm shift in their respective disciplines.

[edit on 17-7-2008 by ALightinDarkness]

Originally posted by tide88
I just email another person who's fields of Expertise are: Constitutional law, First Amendment, Supreme Court and the Constitution, privacy law, press and the Constitution. I asked his opinion on the matter. If he gets back to me I will post. I have asked for his insight on your other post.
"United States of America’s Constitution, as prescribed by the nation’s founders, no longer has direct authority, and that the nation operates under a declared state of martial law. While it is true that the Constitution is referenced, and still alive in spirit to some extent, it is also true that it no longer binds effective governance in legitimacy."
I also have asked him about the supreme courts authority during martial law. Since you claim they had no authority to overrule Lincolns Martial law. Almost tempted to give him a link to your article but I want to get him to take me seriously. I doubt he will if I link it to the ATS website. However this time after he answers I will email him the link. Maybe we will get lucky and he will actually review your arguments.

[edit on 17-7-2008 by tide88]

The guy replied. He actually says jack is a nut. His exact words, and that I was right. We are not living under martial law and havent been since 1864. After the war and Lincoln's death, Constitutional law was restored. As for "the constitution no longer binds effective governance in legitimacy." That also is completly wrong. This ends this debate for me. It is another expert on the subject replying that you are complete wrong in every way. You can say they are propagandists or whatever. But they have confirmed what I have been saying. Even going as far as saying I am completely right. In every way. It has been fun, however your INTERPRETATION is just wrong. Anyway this is where I am ending my discussion on this topic. So till next time, see ya. One more thing "Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction." This had clearly been the case in Indiana in 1864, as even the government's lawyers admitted. As far as I know all the courts are opened. And if you are going to bring up the golden fringed flag
www.landrights.com...
www.midcoast.com...


[edit on 18-7-2008 by tide88]

[edit on 18-7-2008 by tide88]

[edit on 18-7-2008 by tide88]

[edit on 18-7-2008 by tide88]