History of Military Law

The first major maxim of law is that the government is usually always right.

Today most people do not understand who they are and how to apply the Constitution to their lives. However the Constitution is alive and well, it is living in America.

The Constitution of the Common Law is dead from a National point of view, but from an Individual point, the Constitution is alive and well living in America and you can access it on an individual basis if you understand how it applies to you, if you understand who you are (your character, if you have the right character), and if you understand the procedure to access the remedies that are available to you through the Constitution

The second major maxim of law that most patriots are wrong most all of the time.

Not because they aren't waking up, not because they are not trying to learn the truth, but it's what they don't know and don't understand that gets them into trouble. Not what they do. Because as soon as they learn a little bit, they're anxious to go out into the courts everywhere and explain how intelligent and how knowledgeable they are. That's what gets you in trouble and the absolute reversal of the results you intend every time. You are not going to go into those courts and show them how eloquent you can ARGUE the issues of the case. THAT WILL GET YOU DEFEATED EVERY TIME.

The third maxim of law is if you thought about things or did things just ass backwards from what the average person thinks, you have more of an opportunity of being correct than wrong.

That comes from Scripture that says that there is a wide path that leads in commerce in the city and destruction and a very narrow and winding path to truth that gets you to where you're supposed to be going.

DEMOCRACY VERSUS REPUBLIC IN THE UNITED STATES

Everybody that takes an Oath of allegiance to the flag of the United States, oath of allegiance to the Republic and the flag for which it stands. But then we read in the newspaper, listen to the radio and the TV, listen to government speakers and they tell us continuously that it's a DEMOCRACY, DEMOCRACY, DEMOCRACY. They never use the work Republic. What's the problem here?

Then we listen the Gene Schroder and he that on March 9, 1933 basically four to five days after FDR came into the Presidency there was a law passed by Congress which was an update to the TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT of 1917 which declared all US Citizens and State Residents to be enemies of the United States and that created a position in which we lost all of our rights and all of our Constitutional remedies. And that War Powers condition has to be reversed in order to get our freedoms back.

So, many patriots in the last couple of years have been concentrating on what we can do to rid of the War Powers Act and get our rights back. But the question is: If Congress tomorrow were to get rid of the War Powers Act, what would that do in reality for any of us or any of our rights? Would we wake up tomorrow and go into a Traffic court and would we then argue the Constitution? Would all of a sudden the magistrate in that Traffic court then say: Bless you, my children, you have Constitutional rights? Would you like to raise any of them in your argument? THAT WOULD NOT HAPPEN. Stay tuned. Because under the law, the Constitution has nothing to do with Traffic court and it wouldn't change one iota even if they got rid of the War Powers Act.

The problem we have in this nation went back to the first Monday in December in the year 1860. The last time a Lawful Congress of the United States sat in session was roughly October 20, 1860. If you will recall, Congress adjourned about that time to go home in the year 1860 because there were upcoming elections in November for members of Congress and the Presidency of the United States. You will further remember from studies of history in the Public School system that the Southern Legislatures said that if A. Lincoln came became President that personal and private feelings were such that the Southern states said they would secede from the Union and they would not send their representatives to Congress. And certainly in the November elections, A. Lincoln was elected President of the United States.

If you look under Article I, Section 4, Clause 2 of the Constitution for the United States, you will find it talks about the date for the assembling of Congress. CONGRESS WILL MEET THE FIRST MONDAY IN DECEMBER. December of 1860 rolled around and the Southern states says: We aren't coming to Congress. When they did not come to Congress, Congress failed to be in session. A Republican form of government is REPRESENTATIVE. The legislative body is the government. When the legislative fails to come into session when it is supposed to, we go back to the civil essays by John Locke in the 1690s and he says: THE EASIEST WAY TO DISSOLVE GOVERNMENT IS FOR THE HEAD OF THE GOVERNMENT TO GO OUT OF SESSION AND NOT COME BACK. So, when Congress failed to come into session, which the LAW requires them to doArt. I, Sec. 4, Cl. 2on the first Monday in December, they failed to come into sessionIT DISSOLVED THE GOVERNMENT. Anybody tell you that in high school history? It is a condition called SINE DIE (means the suns setsthe government dissolved itself when Congress failed to come into session).

Now understand how ridiculous that situation is. The Southern states wanted to protect States' Rights so they did not come into session in Congress; thereby, they dissolved the United States government. This put it in Emergency War Powers condition which dissolved all the rights of all the states. So, by doing the very act to protect their rights, THEY DESTROYED THEIR RIGHTS. Where were the people that were supposed to be following their government representatives? They were supposed to be out there kicking butt saying: You get you ass up to Washington and correct and restore this governmentnot dissolve it.

What basically happens now is that there is no lawful Congress so there is no Republican form of government. Now get the picture, A. Lincoln who now comes into office and swears an Oath in March of 1861 to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America is an attorneyHE KNOWS THE LAW. He has a higher standard of understanding. He comes in and says: God, I'm supposed to uphold the Constitutionthe Constitution created a Republican form of governmentCongress didn't come into session, so it dissolved the government. I took an Oath to uphold a government that's been dissolved. What is his duties and obligations? If he took an Oath to uphold the Constitution, what does he have to do? HE MUST RESTORE THE GOVERNMENT THAT THE REPRESENTATIVES ABANDONED. How is he going to do that? He is going to go into a Civil Police Action to compel the Southern states to send their representatives back to Congress to restore Congress so that we have a Republican form of government.

Abraham Lincoln has taken a lot of heat. However, it's the authors personal opinion that Lincoln had a firm goal and a firm understanding of exactly what the legal and lawful problems were. His firm plan and goal was that: No matter what the hell it's going to take, we are going to get all of the state legislatures back into the District of Columbia, back in the capitol building. We're going to restore DE JURE lawful government and get us back into the Republicthen we'll handle our problems. He was probably killed because he wanted to restore a lawful legislative body under the law of the Republic and there were elements behind the scenes that said: We will fare much better off under our private interests if lawful government was never restored. If we could maintain an ongoing martial law Military government in this nation. Walk my way and the President will be a dictator and we can control the President. Now lets go down and find out if those patterns and those presumptions are true.

When Lincoln came into the Presidency in March of 1861 after he took office he then around April 20th or 21st issued his first Executive Order and that order went out to the commanders of the US Army and he said: Use your discretion to implement marital law for the purpose of protecting life and property belonging to the United States. That order is an Executive War Powers order, it came from the President who was the chief executive of the United States of America that had NO LAWFUL GOVERNMENT. He gave that order under emergency War Powersthere was no legislative body to consult. He did it out of necessity. There was no government. The government abandoned the people. But since he had a sworn duty to uphold and carry out the Constitution and he was trying his best to get the government back into session. HE WAS DOING IT AS A KING WITH SUPREME AUHORITY.

There is a rule under martial law that once a Martial Law condition has been declared it can never be terminated unless done so under one of three procedures (these procedures are laid out by John Locke's civil essays and they're also laid out in Military government and Military law).

The three methods of terminating Martial law and when martial law kind of devolves into a more easy going thingwe don't have open military oppressionit is know as Martial Rule which means that there is a military government standing behind an alleged civil form of government which is out front that looks, for all practical purposes, like everything is going on as usual. But the civil government is under the authority of the military standing behind it usually unobserved and unobtrusive. The three ways of terminating Martial Law and Martial Rule are:

For the commander under the Martial Law to openly and publicly declare a termination of Martial Law condition. In this case, it would be the President of the United States. But no president of the United States from the time that the order went down in April of 1861 has ever terminated the Martial Law condition created by the Civil War.

A foreign power comes in and conquerors the military power in the nation. And a head of the foreign power by open declaration terminates the military authority. That has never happened. The only foreign power of today with any authority is the United Nationsthey are not about to come into the land, depose the President and announce you guys are all free.

Since martial law rule is not lawful government, the people in the nation by grass roots movement raise up a new governmenta lawful governmentand it displaces the military government when it's in full force and effect by right of law. Because the people have an inherent right to form their own g.. Is that not what the Common Law courts and Militias are trying to do? But the problem is that the courts and the militias are a sub-set of a civil authority and when the militia exits without a civil authority and when the Common Law courts exist without a civil authority, they're not protected.

Therefore, it is put to you, if you are a militia without civil oversight authority claiming legal rights, you're in no better legal position than the Southern Confederate armies in their argument against President Lincoln with their legal right and authority exist to represent the Southern people. THEY WERE IN REBELLION. Therefore, if you're going to have a militia and a Common Law court, you had better learn and understand the laws of nations and Nature so that support that militia and support that Common Law court which are subsets of a natural law of governmentnot independent creatures existing on their own. If you haven't got the foundation and you're filling in all of the other goodies, you're up in the air and you have no law to rest upon, you're going to be cut down when the winds, the rain, and the weather comes. YOU DON'T WANT TO DO IT WRONGYOU WANT TO DO IT RIGHT.

Now Lincoln said that the Southern states were in Rebellionthey were Rebels. Was the Civil War a war or a Police Action? Police Action. Why wasn't it a war? Because a war is conducted between two sovereigns. Let's analyze the situation. If it was a war in the eyes of Lincoln, then he lied because he said he was committing US troops to protect United States property on the basis that the Southern states had no right of possession. If it's his legal position that the Southern states had no right of secession, then they are NOT an independent sovereign nation. If they are not an independent sovereign nation, you can't go to war against them, can you? So, what was it? IT WAS A REBELLION.

What do you do in terms of a Rebellion? If you have a husband beating up on a wife in a house, do you send down a war party to take out the house, capture the house, and destroy the inhabitants and destroy the house for the country that sent the war party down? Or do you send a Police force out to separate the belligerents, cool the situation down, and protect human life and property? And then resolve the issue and get them back into a friendly relationship? Because, after all, they're citizens and they're your friends and they're just a little wacko and you have to get them back on point. The police are not meant to CONQUER the situation, the police are sent to protect human life and property, minimize damage, separate the belligerents, and restore them into law, understanding, resolution.

The goals are different in a Police Action than they are in a War. If we believe Lincoln, his purpose was to restore the Union, treat the Southern states as a people therein as citizens of the United States, as friends, as brothersbring them back into the legislature, talk out the problem, and restore them to principles of law. Do we have any other Acts and Actions conducted by the North under Lincoln which would substantiate this position? Well, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, didn't he?

The Emancipation Proclamation was a War Powers executive action (which means it's under emergency police powers) and you were told in the Public Fool system that it freed the slaves. Go back and read the Emancipation Proclamation. You may be surprised if you read the fine print that it freed the slaves of the rebels. Who are the rebels? Those who took an allegiance to a foreign, unlawful governmentthe Confederacy in the eyes of Lincoln. If there was a Southern plantation owner which had not taken allegiance to the Confederate states, he was not a rebel. Question of law: Did the act of the Emancipation Proclamation by Lincoln free the slaves that he held? No. Was the purpose of the Emancipation Proclamation to end slavery? No. The purpose of the Emancipation Proclamation was to issue a law under emergency powers under International law to seize the property of rebels so it could not be used against the United States in terms of commerce to prosecute the Rebellion. If the Emancipation Proclamation was an Executive order based on War Powers, then you would have had treat the slaves under Common Law as property of their masters. If you're in a war, you owe no payments commercially to your enemy, but then after the war, theoretically, the enemy gets his property back again unless you compensate him for it. If it was a war, after the war did the enemies get their property back? No, they didn't. Therefore, it wasn't a war and they weren't compensated either. Why didn't they get their properties back? Because it was a punishment under Admiralty/Maritime law through the Rebellion. The Emancipation Proclamation was a letter of Marque and Reprisal.

A letter of Marque and Reprisal comes under International law and is what happens when somebody in Rebellion to the law. You seize their property because of their rebellion. Anybody happen to notice the day that the IRS first claims that you're a tax-protestor then they come in and seize your property and they don't follow the Common Law. They don't go to court and get permission now do they? Has anybody noticed that in Waco, Ruby Ridge, and Montana there are no Common Law procedures of warrants supported by affidavits of Probable Cause. Because these actions are NOT under domestic Constitutional law, they are under International Law and every one of these areas have first been declared to be a Cult occupying a Compound. These are key words bringing the action under International Law under emergency War Powers so that it is not a Common Law action, it is an Admiralty/Maritime military proceedings and when is the last time you heard that the military had to go to court to get a warrant to carry out their acts? What they have done is converted the target into International Law by ASSUMPTION/PRESUMPTION and moved against them under the laws of REBELLION so that it abrogates any necessity for proceedings at Common Law. When they are operating under military authority, THEY ARE OPERATING UNDER COLOR OF LAW.

When we bring our case, the judges admits that he's under Color of Law. That is not necessarily an admission of guilt. Because if the judge is under military law, Color of Law is how he operates. And it's his Duty giving rise to an Immunity which is why your Title 42 suits get thrown out of the military courts. However, we're here today to show you how to bring them back on track so they're not thrown out. BECAUSE THESE JUDGES HAVE NOT BEEN RULING ILLEGALLY. They have been sliding around you because you don't know what you're involved in and can't argue it correctly.

Lincoln was involved in a Police Actionto put down the Rebels. The Emancipation Proclamation was a declaration, basically, that this was a Police Action and we're going to take the property away from the Rebels by military seizuresnot under Common Law. When you're under martial law, the Common Law doesn't applyInternational law applies under the laws of Nations. Martial terminates civil government and in this case civil government self destructed with the abandonment of the legislature of the body of Congress. And the President was left with no options other than to rule this country under military government. Never say that Lincoln was the root problem. He might have been able to try and do things including teach the American public what the hell was going on. We weren't there, so we don't know. But Lincoln was NOT the problemCongress was the problem. But more so than that, the people were the problem because there is plenty of case law that says that the duty of the CITIZENS is to keep the government in line and it is NOT the duty of the government to keep the Citizens in line. So, where were all the people who understood anything about government that kept their government in line? The people, out of their ignorance, allowed the Destruction of our Republican, Christian form of government in 1860 without a whimper and without a cry.

When belligerency stops, Martial Law turns into Martial Rule. Civil government under Martial Rule is military governmentit's defined to be a DEMOCRACY. Another name for Democracy is Military government. Where have you been and why have you known? They have been telling you that you've been living in a Democracy all of your life. When did you wake up and say: Why do we have a Military government? Understand, another name for Municipal government is Military government. All the cities are run by municipal governments. All your counties are run by municipal governments. When did you wake up and get a clue that the military was leading your government? Smith told you: That maxim of law number 1the government never does anything wrong They had no authority run this nation by a military governmentbut they are really doing a good job of it. They are following all the rules and regulationsTHEY ARE NOT VIOLATING ONE OF THEM.

Interjection: One of the members went to a hearing for a probation violation on a warrant issuance done by the ATF. They threw out the warrant based on an Affidavit and a Refusal. Foreclosure actionman went into court on a foreclosure with the same affidavit. The judge told him that the attorney was kind of sick and wouldn't be here today and we're going to discontinue the action.

We are getting wins in the military courts. The Constitution is alive and well in America. But the problem is: You don't understand who the hell you are and who the hell they are. And when you go into their military courts, you Traverse right smack into their military proceedings and under Color of Lawwhich is the law the military practicesyou get all the justice the military government is here to give you. And you're not happy with that. You want to change it. You have to learn how to change the military law BACK INTO THE PROTECTIONS YOU'RE ENTITLED TO. There is a revolution going on. This slavery is coming to an end for God's people because they're understanding:

Who they are

Who we are

What we have a right to

How we can compel that remedy as God's inheritors of the freedom.

Instead of acting like military slaves that's gone along with this Fraud. GOVERNMENT HAS DONE NO WRONG. They are deep in all kinds of Fraud, but they don't have to expose the Fraud, they don't even understand they are in the Fraud. They are ignorant as a post. They think they're right. But the problem is that they think they're right and that all of us are wrong because you don't procedurally know how to educate those people and show them where they're wrong also. Until we treat our enemythe ignorant person in government as our friend and teach him the truthWE ARE NOT GOING TO GET OUR REMEDY!! First of all we have to learn that truth in order to teach that truth. OK?

Civil government under that Martial Rule is military government known as the DEMOCRACY. They have been telling us the truth all the time. What kind of money do you have in a war zone? War script. Commercial Paper. What came in during the Civil War? Greenback Dollars. Now a lot of people stand around and say: Do you think government really understands what you're saying, Smith? Do you think those people really know what they're doing or are they ignorant as posts? Obviously, there are some intelligent dudes out there that know exactly what they're doing because they're in a position of the military government and they've been trained to that level to know how to do their job correctly. So, the amount of truth these people have is enough to do their job right. The person that's sweeping the floor has been trained to that level so he can sweep the floor without creating a Constitutional Tort. And he doesn't have a clue as to what's going on.

Now it even goes up to the higher forms of government. Remember, after the Civil War, we had a series of cases in the US Supreme Court called the LEGAL TENDER CASES, didn't we? And we had two adjudications of the Legal Tender Cases. The first batch, the court went through and said: Duh, we think it's illegal and unlawful under the Constitution. I don't think we can have that Greenback paper money. And then lo and behold, about a year later, they reheard another Legal Tender Case: Duh, under the emergency War Powers, we don't see any problem with Commercial paper. Now, we're talking the United States Supreme Court justices here, right? We are talking that are well trained in the law and these fellows must have some clue, right? Smith's opinion is that the first time the court heard the case, they were under the mistaken delusion that the Nation came back into a Constitutional Republic because as a Constitutional Republic YOU CAN'T HAVE COMMERCIAL PAPER CIRCULATING AS A LEGAL TENDER. So, the Supreme Court justices go: Duh, under the Constitution, Art. I, Sec 10, the states have to operate with Gold and Silver. But everybody agreed the FedsDistrict of Columbiadoesn't have to operate with Gold and Silver. Why don't they have to have Gold and Silver? Number one, because they are not included under the restrictions of the Constitution. Number two, they are created as an Admiralty/Maritime statenot a Common Law statefor the purpose of buffering us with foreign governments which under Commerce, under International Law is Admiralty/Maritime. So we needed an Admiralty/Maritime agent to deal with any Admiralty/Maritime International Law. So, that's why they buffered the District of Columbia and set it aside to be a SEPARATE ENCLAVEit's not a state. Because all of the States were using Common Law. In that enclave there's no Common Law. We specifically buffered it and created in Non-Common Law so it could do Admiralty/Maritime International Law. Why would we send them our gold when they're going to send us their Commercial paper? Not there, unequally yoked. So, we have to set up a trade bufferDistrict of Columbia. So, District of Columbia can operate outside the world of Gold and Silver. It's not illegal, and it's not unlawful, and it's not unconstitutional.

So, the second time the Supreme Court head this, somebody must have come to these geeks and said: You guys a bunch of dummies, don't you understand we're under military law? We're not under Constitutional law, we haven't restored the Constitution, there's no Republican restoration of this government. You made a perfectly sound judgment under Common Law, but it's a perfectly idiotic judgment under Martial Law/Rule. What is Martial Law/Rule? Is it permanent? No. It's temporary. What was the decision in the second set of Legal Tender Cases? Didn't they decide that Commercial paper is ok because of its temporary emergency nature? Because the Presumption is: Eventually, after the emergency's over, we are going to restore the support of gold. Therefore, under the emergency conditions, Commercial paper is ok. Now, I put it to you, these guys that ruled the first time didn't have a clue. But I think somebody said: You guys really screwed up, but maybe you didn't have all the facts before you, but if I were you, I'd rehear this case because we haven't gone off the emergency yet. And we need to have the provision for martial law or war script to operate during the emergency. So, the justices go: My God, did we blow that one. We better rehear the case.

Now their first decision is under Common Law. It has NEVER been reversed. Their second decision was under Military Law. It has NEVER been reversed. The first decision is applicable law to the Venue of the Republic which can never die. The second decision is applicable law to the Venue to the War Powers District of Columbia. And it's perfectly applicable in that scenario. Now when you bring a case before the court dealing with Commercial Paper, what are the facts and the venue your case? Has your case been established within the venue of the Republic/Common Law or has your case been established within the venue of Martial Law/War Powers government? BECAUSE THE FACTS IN THE CASE HAVE TO BE DECIDED BEFORE WE APPLY THE LAW OF THE CASE. Do you see why you are probably losing? Because you haven't stated sufficient facts in you're pleading to put your scenario of your case in the Proper venue. The court can rule either way depending upon the facts and pleading of the case. Your pleadings are insufficient to state a claim upon which the Common Law venue is going to apply a ruling in this court. Therefore, we will give you the answer under the military rulingyou're in violation of the war powers Commercial paperyou're off base. See why you're losing? It's not that you don't understand the law, you don't understand the venue, you don't understand whose hearing the case, you don't understand how to write your pleadings and argue them.

POST CIVIL WAR EVENTS

After the Civil War, Smith stated his opinion was that Lincoln was going to come down and restore full government. To do that, you have to bring the South in as full-restored government. But Lincoln was assassinated. Vice-president Johnson came in and there was high hopes that he was going to throw the military reconstruction on the South and he said no. President Lincoln was elected on his platform so I have to carry out his platform. So, he, during the unexpired term of Lincoln, proceeded to apply the attempt to bring the South back in on a full standard and restore Congress to get us back into a Republican form of government. Didn't happen. The next President is a Generala military GeneralUlysses S. Grant. He chose military reconstruction on the Southmartial law, martial rule. Then they said: We're going to restore the legislative body of Congress. All you representatives from the Southern states come on back up to the District of Columbia. But to get your credentials to be seated in the Legislature, you have to pass our test of approval. What Legislative body is this now? Was this Legislative body elected by the people of the Statesthey're representatives? Or are they under the authority of the District of Columbia? They are under the authority of the District of Columbia. OK?

If you want the full version go to http://rochesterlaw.org/free

or go to home page http://rochesterlaw.org

This is an intense study of what happened to the law in the united states of America

Comment on "History of Military Law"