"Damn The Country, Obama Must Fail"

Originally posted by dooper

Technically, we aren't part of the union. To this day.

Actually this too is not correct. By 1870 all states had held conventions and reelected state governments and rejoined the union. In fact, they were not allowed to rejoin the union unless they approved the 13th amendment(The abolition of slavery), and thus NONE were forced back into the union, although they were occupied until they did join. This was different from Lincolns plan which was that at least 10% of the population of a state had to take an oath of loyalty to the Union. So as you can verify if you like, even the southern states have rejoined the union and ProtoplasmicTraveler isn't right.

I do think you for defending me though.

[edit on 22-9-2009 by memarf1]

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Everything I have posted to this thread is historical fact!

Actually nothing you have posted has been historical fact. Although everything I have represented here is historical fact and you may verify it or not. I don't disagree that Washington is out of control, but your credibility for your claims is shot. You haven't had a truthful claim regarding this topic and have denied all of my historical evidence and even the U.S. Constitution itself. If you believe your claims are true then provide evidence, as I have done!

I believe you to be the Usurper and Liar.

[edit on 22-9-2009 by memarf1]

reply to post by memarf1


Even Ohio didn't join the union until I believe, 1931. They'll say different, but the didn't technically join the union by the letter of the law until 1931.

Now, go back, and see the Amendments that would never have passed, since they erroneously THOUGHT that Ohio had a vote.

Go back and look at the wordings of all the States who supposedly ratified these amendments - and we find that many were not in fact ratified.

So, no, I still hold that the Southern States that pulled out of the union, are technically, occupied territory.

They never rejoined.

Oh, sure, we sent representatives, and everyone played nice, but for folks who are supposed to be so damned concerned about the law, the Constitution was circumvented, and the Constitution has been circumvented, and continues to be circumvented.

Originally posted by memarf1

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Everything I have posted to this thread is historical fact!

You haven't had a truthful claim regarding this topic and have denied all of my historical evidence and even the U.S. Constitution itself. If you believe your claims are true then provide evidence, as I have done!

I believe you to be the Usurper and Lier.

Silly bean! The U.S. Constitution hasn't been in force since the war of northern agression. It was replaced by corporate contract law by the most evil president to ever exist thus using it as a reference relegates your argument to the scrap heap of foolish slaves imprisioned by their own belief that they are free.

reply to post by dooper


Technically the claim was that the southern states never technically left the union since the right of secession was only guaranteed to Texas until the 20th century. Hence why we keep seeing all these new state laws concerning exactly this topic. My claim is that they were always a part of the union since they could not legally secede, and that they were simply not allowed a vote during the war, and not until they agreed to the 13th amendment. Historically and to the letter of the law this means that even though we recognize that all of the southern states had rejoined by 1870, they were never truly a part of another country. The Confederacy was never a recognized government. Hence why we don't call that war, the Union vs Confederacy war or something, it was a civil war. We were always one country.

Originally posted by EnlightenUp

Originally posted by memarf1

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Everything I have posted to this thread is historical fact!

You haven't had a truthful claim regarding this topic and have denied all of my historical evidence and even the U.S. Constitution itself. If you believe your claims are true then provide evidence, as I have done!

I believe you to be the Usurper and Lier.

Silly bean! The U.S. Constitution hasn't been in force since the war of northern agression. It was replaced by corporate contract law by the most evil president to ever exist thus using it as a reference relegates your argument to the scrap heap of foolish slaves imprisioned by their own belief that they are free.

See, now that I can agree that you are just goofy and I can laugh and move on. Thank you. No claims of unsubstantiated history or anything, just fun! haha. Props.

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by memarf1

 

Even Ohio didn't join the union until I believe, 1931. They'll say different, but the didn't technically join the union by the letter of the law until 1931.

Ohio became a state in 1803 and fought with the Union during the civil war. It was an important part of the war effort.

reply to post by dooper


You are correct Dooper, it has been a Defacto War Time Dictatorship since 1861.

Just as I posted in the response that it took CONGRESS over a month to try to formulate a half butted answer too.

Looks to me like the truth is getting out buddy!

Courtesty of the Rabble Rouser,

AKA Protoplasmic Traveler

and brave Patriots like Dooper!

It's as if these people long to be slaves. They read no real history, understand no real Law, listen to what ever they are told and act as lackeys for their tyranical Masters.

reply to post by memarf1


No, they THOUGHT they became a state.

They discovered in I believe it was 1931 that someone screwed the pooch, they then made the determination that they could retro-join, and yet as I understand it, our Constitution does not allow for any retro law-making.

I don't have the material right now in front of me, but Ohio only recently became a state - even though everyone THOUGHT they were a state.

This is the problem.

Everyone touts the law, the law, the law, and yet they don't follow the law.

They twist it, the neutralize it, they skirt it, and then they just outright ignore it.

The states voluntarily joined a union of states. Not DC.

With the understanding that they could unjoin.

Which they did.

They were invaded and occupied, and that's where we stand today.

reply to post by memarf1


Dooper is correct Ohio had not been properly admitted procedurally into the United States and was not officially made a State until the 1930's when the error had come to light by Congress.

The War of 1812 and the sacking of Washington had a lot to do with the Crown getting it's hands on charters and documents pertaining to the Government.

The United States was set up as a British Corporation in the Treaty of Paris, when the Holy Roman Empire which had named the United States a State in the Treaty of Paris that ended the revolutionary war fell, our politicians in Washington tried to renig on the Contracts.

So the British came sacked the Capital and carried off the Contracts, and many of the documents and records of Congress.

Ohio did fight in the illegal war of States Rights, which was once again about imposing the Crowns rule over the Corporation.

You know nothing about real History or what's really going on in the world, and who the real players are friend.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


First, I only saw this thread and began looking into it last week, thus it didn't take over a month. Second, No, IT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT A DE FACTO WAR CONGRESS! You are simply wrong, I do not know how many more ways to tell you that. Maybe other claims on this thread are right, but this is the one I chose to read and respond to because it seemed so outlandish yet believable. The problem is that it is JUST NOT TRUE!!!

As I have said, Even if you were right, which you aren't, then following the war the government went back to the way it was before. Go read "1787", you will even find that politics today isn't much different to then. It was an eye opener and very disappointing for me to read and find out. We tend to glorify that period, but in reality they were no more and no less corrupt than we are today. It's freaking horrible.

You just need to read some stuff. If you want to make claims and try to change our country then you better damned sure have your facts straight and right now you don't. If I were you I would first start with the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and then I'd go read "1787". Maybe you'll get some insite into how our government works and has always worked.

We are and always have been slaves, the difference in the U.S. is that we can buy our way out of the servitudes!

[edit on 22-9-2009 by memarf1]

Greetings all...(howdy Proto!)

More informative reading for your visual pleasure...

Death of a Republic
www.scribd.com...

Page 2 near bottom...

To those digging in the bone piles of history, it becomes clearer every day that the Republic that was the united States of America, died at the hands of A. Lincoln, who seized power - without any lawful, constitutional authority whatsoever - and set forces in motion that drove the South into a war it did not want, and could not win.

In the eruption that followed, on the killing grounds of Antietam, Vicksburg, Missionary Ridge, and Gettysburg, the lifeblood of patriots flowed out onto the earth and into the crevices of revisionist history. Long before the flag of truce was raised, the Republic had already died, not with a bang, but ignominiously, in a whisper, no one heard amidst the raging winds of war.

When the Southern states walked out of Congress in March 27, 1861, the quorum to conduct business under the Constitution was lost. The only votes Congress could lawfully take, under parliamentary law, were those to set the time to re-convene, take a vote to get a quorum, and vote to adjourn and set a date, time, and place to re-convene at a later time.

Instead, Congress abandoned the House and Senate without setting a date to reconvene. Under the parliamentary law of Congress, when this happened Congress became sine die (pronounced see-na dee-a), literally, `without day,' "An adjournment sine die -- that is, without day, -- closes the session, and if there is no provision for convening the assembly again, of course the adjournment dissolves the assembly.

Thus, when Congress adjourned sine die it ceased to exist as a lawful deliberative body. The only lawful, constitutional power who could declare war, was no longer lawful, or in session.

Congress did not reconvene until days later when it was re-convened under the military authority of the Commander-in-Chief by Executive Order, and sat unlawfully under the direct pleasure of A. Lincoln as Commander-in-Chief of the military.

To this very day, Congress still exists by the military authority of the Commander-in-Chief, and not as a lawful Constitutional body. More evidence for this is in any set of U.S. Titles and Codes. In the Index of Titles in Volume One, one finds either;

a. Title II, The Congress is marked with an asterisk and the note at the bottom of the page will indicate that the Congress exists by Resolution, not positive law, or;

b. All positive law titles are marked with an asterisk and Title II, The Congress has none. In this case the footnote states that those marked with an asterisk exist by virtue of positive law.

The point here is, Congress knew the rules of parliamentary law and knew that it could have adjourned lawfully, but instead, chose a method that the Congress knew would destroy the law making power of Congress. In other words, the campaigns of the commercial speculators, banks, and others in Congress had been successful. The Constitution for the united states of America had ceased to be the law of the land, and the President, Congress, and the Courts were now free to re-make the nation in its own image.

The Southern states, by virtue of their succession from the Union, also ceased to exist sine die. And, those state legislatures in the Northern bloc also adjourned sine die as, for example, occurred in California in April 27, 1863.

Thus, all the states who were parties to creating the Constitution ceased to exist and new states were created in their place as Franchisees of the Federal corporation, so that a new Union of the UNITED STATES could be created. From that time on, all Presidents have rules by Executive Order (The Kings decree). Lincoln, the new father of a new Country, only wrote a handful of E.O.'s during his time in office, but they were momentous.

Executive Order No.1, the first ever signed by a President was executed April 21st, 1861, and called up 75,000 militia. Other E.O.'s are issued under the authority of the Commander-in-Chief by the Adjutant General, the Treasury, and others.

The point is, Lincoln had no authority to issue any executive order, and he knew it. Thus, he commissioned a special code to `govern' his acts under martial law. In fact, the Code merely justified his seizure of power. "The Lieber Instructions," extended The Laws of War and International Law beyond the boundaries of Washington, D.C., and for the first time, it brought foreign law onto American soil.

The UNITED STATES government became the conqueror and all states in the Union were then re-formed as Franchisees of the Federal Corporation. The key to when the states became Federal Franchisees is related to the date when such states enacted the Field Code in law. The Field Code was a codification of the common law that was adopted first, by New York and by California in 1872.

Later, the Leiber Code put the U.S. into the 1874 Brussels Conference (two years after Washington D.C., was incorporated), and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.

The Lieber Code explicitly states in Section I, Article 1., that;

"A place, district, or country occupied by an enemy stands, in consequence of the occupation, under the Martial Law of the invading or occupying army, whether any proclamation declaring Martial Law, or any public warning to the inhabitants, has been issued or not. Martial Law is the immediate and direct effect and consequence of occupation or conquest."

Would your local police, sheriff, or friendly state trooper qualify as a "standing army in occupation"? Lincoln imposed Martial Law on American without public notice.

Americans could be arrested (falsely mustered), hauled into military tribunals, tried, convicted, sentenced, put into jail, or put to death, without ever knowing the trials were in fact, military proceedings in court martial against civilians! In such courts, no defendant has any Constitutional rights!.

The Code goes on to say in the same section, Article 10, that;

"Martial Law affects chiefly the police and collection of public revenue and taxes whether imposed by the expelled government or by the invader, and refers mainly to the support and efficiency of the army, its safety, and the safety of its operations."

Is it mere `coincidence' the I.R.S. was born during this period, in 1863? It only collected war reparations from the conquered peoples in the South. Later, F.D. Roosevelt, went Lincoln one better when he extended the same unconstitutional acts to all the states.

The Lieber Code then states in Section II, Article 31., that;

"A victorious army appropriates all public money, seizes all property until further direction by its government, and sequesters for its own benefit or that of its government all the revenues of real property belonging to the hostile government or nation. The title to such real property remains in abeyance during military occupation, and until the conquest is made complete."

Under Martial Law, ones title is a mere fiction, since all property belongs to the military except for that property which the Commander-in-Chief may, in his benevolence, exempt some property from taxation and seizure and upon which he allows the enemy to reside.

After Lincoln, a new type of government was born in America when the District of Columbia was incorporated in 1872.

In modern Titles and Codes, we find that District of Columbia can also be called, the "UNITED STATES."
Now, why did the federal power need a corporation?

The answer is, first, martial law governments are - in law - styled as `fictional creations.' Second, the doctrine of equal standing in law makes it clear that only parties of equal standing can communicate in law.

The Maxim of Law is: "Disparata non debent jungi -- Dissimilar things ought not be joined." Third, since such governments are fictitious, they can only deal with fictions and are thus, prohibited from re-creating lawful civil authority.

Only the people have the sole and exclusive right, power, and authority to alter, abolish, or create a Lawful Civil government. Therefore, since corporations are also fictions, they became the logical means through which the new government carried on its business.

Notice however, the substance of the government is now gone, and it retains only the outward form and appearance. This is why congress can not, nor would, restore our constitutional rights or lawful order.

After Lincoln's War ended and hostilities were declared at an end, what follows is that eventually the new fiction must eliminate what it could of common law, courts, and process. This is made easier, if the people forget.

The Lieber Code justified keeping martial law a secret.

Part of the evidence for the continuation of martial law is seen in an address given by Andrew Johnson, Lincoln's successor, in which he gives his reasons for vetoing the Reconstruction Acts.

"The veto of the original bill of the 2d of March was based on two distinct grounds, the interference of Congress in matters strictly appertaining to the reserved powers of the States, and establishment of military tribunals for the trial of citizens in time of peace."

Continued...

Hail Caesar!!!

[edit on 9/22/2009 by Hx3_1963]

Continued...

The UNITED STATES - The New Roman Empire
www.scribd.com...

Indeed, to this very day, the nation was and is still under martial law and Congress knows it, though the People have been ignorant of the fact. And, the U.S. is under no obligation to tell the People anything regarding their true status, nor to promote reconstruction of the Lawful civil authority!

Some may call this treason, sedition, or fraud, and these charges are commonly seen in the patriot literature, but, in fact, it is mere deceit, which is a stratagem of war, and under International Law is legal.

This is because under such law, commonly associated under the Laws of War, it is proper for the enemy to deceive his opponent in the field, until engagement is made.

Thus the importance of Roosevelt's change in the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, and the re-classification of all Americans as belligerents under an emergency situation (actually a declaration of war).

Regarding this era, we close with a quote from Robert E. Lee":
"Governor [Rosecrans], if I had foreseen the use those people [the Republicans] designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no, sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in my right hand."

In reply to Mr. Lee, we say that only the battle was lost. The war goes on!

The Law of Rome in America

More at Link...

[edit on 9/22/2009 by Hx3_1963]

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


So now you are changing your claim into a corporate government following 1812? You started with 1861, so which is it? I'll have to look into the Ohio thing, but I believe the other claims(About contracts and 1812) to be perfect for a site like this b/c they are unprovable. Although I think they are unreasonable. Countries back then fought until one subdued the other into surrender. Then, the lands were divided and typically ruled over by the winning countries overseers so I doubt that that war changed things that much. Since, of course, the war ended and the U.S. stayed the U.S.

States may have joined with the "Understanding" or misconstrued thought that they could secede after joining, but the U.S. Constitution does not allow for that and never has. That was why it was so important who signed it when it was signed, therefore my previous statements about the civil war still stand.

The term "State" is always used in the international community to refer to countries. It is why our Union is so important, we are a union of states. Certain states like Texas, still refer to themselves as republics. To say that we are a part of the Holy Roman Empire seems a bit crazy and I would need to see proof. So again, I beseech you to provide some evidence and let me draw my own conclusions.

reply to post by Hx3_1963


Thank you for the great information. These are the points that are in fact in contention here at the moment.

The actual record is a very important thing. The truth should not be lost.

reply to post by memarf1


Friend if you want to actually start learning some of this history I and others would be happy to share with you sources and resources on the turbulent ups and downs of actual American and European and Roman History that all fall into play at various times in various ways.

You do need to back off the advessarial stance though if you want to learn more about the actual history of the nation.

Riding in and demanding we accept fairy tales isn't going to really cut the mustard.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by memarf1

 

Friend you have a serious problem starting with ATS Terms and Conditions.

I know you don't care, that you are just here to cause trouble, but you need to keep your debate civil.

Everything I posted in my post is factual. You have not provided one shred of Evidence per the high ATS standards that makes your arguments anything more than personal wishful thinking ones.

Now if you want to keep debating do it within proper rules.

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!!! I PROVIDED PROOF FROM THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS THE OFFICE OF THE HISTORIAN! I PROVIDED THE EXACT ARTICLE AND SECTION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. I PROVIDED NUMBERS OF THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO PROVE TO YOU THERE WAS A QUORUM! I PROVIDED YOU YEARS OF STATEHOOD! etc...

What more do you want? You are the one that has not provided any proof of claims. You are the one that should be flagged of violation of the terms and conditions of ATS and you are the one that is causing trouble.

I was simply trying to point out flaws and lies in your post!

reply to post by memarf1


How did I cause trouble, by posting a highly accurately popuarlly acclaimed piece on what happened at the start of the Civil War?

By knowing history and sharing it? Do you understand Professors of History later posted to the thread saying this was correct and true.

The only think the House Historian answered was one aspect of the thread without you even scanning or posting his reply but claiming it was him.

You are just way out of line and way of base.

It's not how we debate here on ATS.

What I was trying to demonstrate to you about the War of 1812 is how critical records were lost and that's what led to the confusion over Ohio's status that later caused it to have to be admitted for the first time officially as a State in the 1930's.

reply to post by memarf1
Greetings good friend...

I suggest you re-read my prior post...and notice the bold/under-lined text...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Hail Caesar!!!