It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Lincoln Movie Martial Law still alive today

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 09:04 AM
The Lincoln Movie

Not that I’m a fan of Lincoln after all he did give us General Order 100 which declares Martial Law and is what we are still operating under till this day. Depending on the movie according to its brief description may be a great thing, for it is my opinion that this version will show the real reason for his assassination. That being the passing of the treaty of peace, which is the ONLY lawful way to end General Order 100 Martial Law for all, the second way of ending General Order 100 is by special Presidential Proclamation but this picks and chooses which parts to end. Till this day only two have ever been written up both for the State/Country of Texas and both were very specific in there nature. According to sources over the years looking into this, one was already written up and ready to be signed, the Treaty of Peace, not to be confused with the Treaty of Parris. That is why TPTB had to stop him before he could in fact once and for all officially end the War Between the States.

This is why so many in the movement fall for the Admiralty scams, yes we do have a military style court system, however Admiralty or Maritime is nothing more then the law of the sea. Martial Law operation clearly shows throughout General Order 100 all 150 plus articles of it exactly what system we operate in today. Including the illusions of local governments and elections as in time of none hostilities, if I recall that’s in parts 30 through 33. Been awhile so might be off and could do a quick look for those interested.

Again not a fan of Lincoln, but also feel General Order did have its place and as the war was coming to its end, Lincoln’s plan was to end this restricting Order freeing ALL. Like all things the puppet masters wanted nothing to do with it and dealt with it in the manor they have always done. This all ties in with and why the 14th was forced to be adopted by the Southern States/Countries, that we have all learned about thanks to LB’s book The Red Amendment (TRA), and The People’s Awareness Coalition (PAC).

More to learn here:

Had much more on General Order 100 but after a year of that thread being up and adding a bump to it, all of a sudden ATS decided to take it down, working on having it returned.
edit on 9-10-2012 by drmeola because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 11:22 AM
reply to post by drmeola

I have mentioned it before myself.
The police are an army standing against the people. They 'hate' civilans and view them as an enemy to be eliminated.

posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 11:38 AM
Hi Vendettea,

Thank you for your post read over your thread, I wish things were so simple but the rabbit hole goes much deeper then most have ever thought or heard before.

Sorry you have such a bad take on LEO, one should not look poorly on a group as a whole because of a couple of bad apples. My LEO, brothers and sisters do NOT hate civilians to start off and many have had enough of big brother telling them how they need to do the job.

I teach many things on many levels, I hate all citizens. To understand that statement takes some reading and study time I recommend starting with the thread I posted within my opening here. When you’re truly ready for truth and fact in law I am always around, plus I do a radio show every Thursday night as well.

posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 12:28 PM
reply to post by drmeola

Though I love Daniel-Day Lewis, Spielberg is not a favorite. I expect propaganda in a Ken Burns kind of way

posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 12:46 PM
They are known by the company they keep.
They could have gotten the 'bad apples' out but they didn't.
Would you trust a chain with just a few bad links? One bad link (or cop) the entire chain cannot be trusted to do a job.

Your link is to a facebook page.
I don't like facebook, will not sign into it, it is too invasive, tracks your browsing history after you have logged off, and I have never learned or cared to learn how to navigate it.
Is it possible you could post less intrusive links to the same information?
edit on 9-10-2012 by VforVendettea because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 03:10 PM
You suggest this entire country is under Martial Law as signed by Lincoln (General order 100) , ( because it was never overturned by a peace treaty.)

This is silly because - Lincoln's proclamation Didn't include the whole country. It only included

all Rebels and Insurgents, their aiders and abettors within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice, affording aid and comfort to Rebels against the authority of United States, shall be subject to martial law.

Of course he did try to suspend Habeas corpus also with his proclamation because Rebel sympathizers could be anywhere - even in the Union states. He needed a way to get to them.

This would be all the Rebel states, not the entire country.

Here is another site that supports your position that we are still under martial law and Admiralty Law as opposed to Constitutional law. It makes the same mistakes you seem to make by applying martial Law to the whole country.

It seems these two issues are being confused. Certainly this would not apply to the Union states as they were not under martial law.

Furthermore, any Martial Law that applied to the Rebel states would have been dissolved when those states rejoined the Union.

At the end of the Civil War. It was the position of the Union that the states did not have the right to secede. The dates on which the 11 seceding states were again granted representation in Congress (Missouri and Kentucky did not formally secede.) :

Tennessee : July 24, 1866
Arkansas : June 22, 1868
Florida : June 25, 1868
North Carolina : July 4, 1868
Louisiana : July 9, 1868
South Carolina : July 9, 1868
Alabama : July 13, 1868
Georgia : July 21, 1868
Virginia : January 26, 1870
Mississippi : February 23, 1870
Texas : March 30, 1870

How would you answer these things?

Lets examine General order 100 some more - was it really Martial Law? Martial Law was established by Presidential proclamation. In that he used General Order 100 to define to the Union troops how to treat the Confederate people they captured. General Order 100 is the Lieber Code. it defines the actions of the Union troops. It has nothing to do with supplanting Constitutional law with Admiralty Law. Actually instituting this Lieber Code is a pretty humane thing to do because it's more fair for all concerned. It brings human rights to martial law under wartime.

Do I agree there examples that can "prove" we do have Admiralty Law in the USA. Yes, but I can't find it by your reasoning.
edit on 9-10-2012 by JohnPhoenix because: sp

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 08:18 AM
Sorry about the Face book page link sure one for the movie can be found some place else on the web but was the one that I found when working on my group page.

Hi John,

It’s good to see someone on here interested in learning and bring forth information to show their stance for this I have to thank you, and star of course.

Now for the fun part yes lets say your quoted post is correct, “all Rebels and Insurgents” the problem is the lawful definition of those as we have all been taught the south was the Rebels, but have you ever looked it up?

Rebels. A term loosely but incorrectly applied to the Confederate Forces engaged in Civil war. 30 AM J Rev ed Insurr 2

The crime referenced is rebellion, hence is treason. Treason can be found mentioned in the body of the Constitution under Article 3 Section 3 it is defined as follows:

Treason. This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance. The constitution of the United States, art.3 sec3, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death.

To further expand, insurgent and rebel are defined by Noah Webster 1828 as follow:

Insurgent. A person who rises in opposition to civil or political authority; one who openly and actively resists the execution of laws. (see insurrection)

An insurgent differs from a rebel. The insurgent opposes the execution of a particular law or laws; a rebel attempts to overthrow or change government. Or he revolts and attempts to place his country under another authority. All rebels are insurgents, but all insurgents are not rebels.

Country. Is the state in which one was born. The USA or any form there of is NOT a country nor ever was, since each state making up the Union is its own country/nation by law, there was no breach of allegiance, so no crime committed. By voting, you are committing a crime the crime is treason because you are throwing off your rightful dejure country and giving its power over to another.

To continue:

Insurrection. A rebellion of citizens of subjects of a country against its government. (see also belligerent)

To Reiterate:

Treason imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance: and, Insurrection is a rebellion of citizens or subjects of a country against its government with purpose of turning their country over to another authority. Defacto

Much more to read and understand at that and also this link:

Added note: Admiralty law is law of the sea only not the freeman on the land bs, our courts do NOT operate under Admiralty or Maritime law on a regular basis.

edit on 10-10-2012 by drmeola because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics


log in