CONTEXT: Possible insight into how Lincoln was running the "wartime government" using the Military US, rather than the Civil US which went bankrupt in 1861 with this 1863 published document.
TDLR: Tying together Law of War need that seemed to be "inspired" by the War of 1812 and the Civil War actions of Lincoln using this very "Law of War" to run the country starting 1861. It clearly was needed due to the continuous infiltration of foreign enemies from Britain, including bankers. This same sort of infiltration is what Andrew Jackson was fighting with the abolishing and liquidation of Bank #2 1829-1841; And clearly Lincoln was fighting it as well as there was infiltration leading up to and during the Civil War starting about 1851.
Authorized by Secretary of War Simon Cameron, published by United States, War Department via Government Printing Office, 1863:
Revised United States Army regulations of 1861 : with an appendix containing the changes and laws affecting Army regulations and Articles of War to June 25, 1863
And there is a 3rd edition from 1846, by CAPTAIN A. It. HETZEL, U. S. ARMY; Note this one says "Washington City", and not "Washington" or "Washington D.C." by GEORGE TEMPLEMAN (publisher)
TONA XIII Shenanigans and the War of 1812 as impetus for Law of War and counter-infiltration tactics of the United States and its military
Once fully ratified, an Amendment can only be removed with another Amendment (which does not exist). States CANNOT "unratify, once they ratify. Clearly some cabal shenanigans going on here regarding TONA XIII, imo; Iowa was new state on 28DEC 1846 with ratification still over 0.75; Did Texas join on 29DEC 1846 to make it appear less than 3/4 of states had ratified? Still looking into whether Texas ratified or not. Many historical documents were intentionally destroyed in the Civil War, especially in the Confederate States, of which Texas was one.
Official history of War of 1812 ordered per Act of Congress. Look for references to infiltrators and compromised people and other relevant nuggets justifying Law of War:
An impartial and correct history of the war between the United States of America, and Great Britain; declared by a law of Congress, June 18, 1812, and concluded by a ratification and exchange of a treaty of peace, at the city of Washington, Feb. 17, 1815. Comprising a particular detail of the naval and military operations and a faithful record of the events produced during the contest ..
2nd edition (1816) Joseph Smyth publisher, BELFAST; Original edition 1815, by John Low, NEW YORK:
My questions lead me to doubt the loyalty of Lincoln. I am still trying to sort out the facts about Lincoln as there are several things that stand out as we sort through history.
Lincoln was a member of the B.a.r and held the foreign title of esquire. Under the original 13th amendment that was written and signed but was mysteriously swept under the rug and not recognized, He would not be able to be president while holding a foreign title and having sworn an oath to a foreign state or organization such as the b.a.r. This would make it appear that he was the foreign puppet that infiltrated our government.
Was he still a member of the b.a.r while in office?
Who does the b.a.r serve? The crown. I.e Bankers?
Can you serve two masters?
Which oath would supersede?
Why did the establishment of the banking cabal firmly take control of this country so easily, immediately following the foundations Lincoln put in place?
Was the establishment of martial law a good thing for this country? Was the creation of executive order and corporate bureaucracy a good thing?
History is a weapon, if we don’t sort it out, it will be used against us in a court of law.
I’m not sure that’s the very best argument, and here’s why I would say that
The tribes across the country knew we were in a civil war and so the raids and massacres upon settlers, men women and children, exploded during that period. One could argue that the actions of the army against certain tribes after the civil war were reactionary and provoked.
You should research how imaginative, creative and brutal many North American tribes were at torturing their captives and how much they enjoyed raping, plundering, murdering and slave trading.
I’m not defending the genocide that did in fact take place, but in a world of guns, germs and steel you can’t claim victim and innocence after you take up arms and are/were defeated in battle. Warlords of a country got conquered by the invading warlords of another. Does it make it right, I guess that’s debatable, to me it just means that the settlers who the Indians began waging war upon were backed by bigger stronger warlords than the Indians and the Indians lost.
Bringing it back to the North and the South
The problem lies in the obfuscation and fog of war where we find high ranking characters within both sides, who would seem to be playing for the same team and it wasn’t “we the people”.
All good points. Lincoln was from a cabal family. That seems very high probability, and he likely never would have been elected if not. His wife may have been his "handler" as she also appeared to be from a cabal family.
Clearly Lincoln did something very specific counter to what he was instructed to do, and this is why they killed him. We will figure it all out eventually, but for now Lincoln is a "mixed bag", imo, doing some very good Union preservation and Constitution preservation things. Note that the corruptive part of history is when leaders at the top get blamed for 100% of the bad shit that unfolds during a war, some of which is engineered for that exact purpose.
That is a very deep question and it seems the more one digs the more one uncovers a tangled web of lies and corruption, which most people don’t want to sort through so they give up.
I would add they not only use history as a weapon but our ignorance of language.
If you have not come across this conference, it is a wealth of knowledge and information and I highly recommend digging into what is presented.
I’ll suggest getting a note pad from the beginning because once you get into it you’ll tell yourself you need it.
After watching it, you should have a much better understanding of how it ties into Lincoln and the era and timeframe we are discussing in this thread and hopefully it clarifies what I meant by how they use our ignorance of both language and history against us. Courts are their battlefield of choice and they have done everything they can to rig it in their favor.
My opinion is that what is presented in this conference is one of the most powerful solutions and explanations
of how we take back and restore our Republic from the ground up that I have come across.
OP this is so good IMHO there should be an additional .win just for digs and research of this magnitude and quality. Not that GAW folks shouldn't see it, but so it would be more easily accessed when seeking this level of engagement, the autist/baker/dig level of info apart from the enjoyable and important memes and jokes, miscellaneous items tangential to Q, and everything else not like this that still forms a vital part of the Great Awakening. Anything at 'Dig2.win' or whatever could of course be posted at GAW as well for broader exposure
I am going to read that book about the war of 1812. Thanks for sharing. I just perused he first few pages and found this, quote:
Man, in all stages, is a lover of liberty, rea-
son dictates that he has rights ; but this reason ob-
scured by artificial ignorance, and enervated by
habitual bondage, becomes incapable of action,
and insensible to the true extent of his misery.
The slave feels pain, without knowing whence it
originates, or how it should be remedied. This
observation is strictly applicable only to corpo-
real slavery. The slavery exercised over the
conscience, is that in support of which no so-
phistry can prevail; and to which no term, no
length of endurance, can reconcile the sufferer.
No prescription can justify the practice of en-
slavement in any case; and no slave, however ab-
ject) will admit it in cases affecting his conscience.
God has instilled into the heart of man certain re-
ligious duties, and whenever the fulfilment of
these is forbidden by human edicts, the injured
person fears not to revolt or seek an asylum a-
gainst persecution.
That is an interesting insight and seems to explain the exact reasoning and basis on how and why you could get away with creating a status of “citizen” with the description of “person” to deprive “We the People” into voluntarily giving up our Inalienable God given rights as Men and Women in exchange for a membership into the corporation of 1871 as a “person” who receives “privileges” and “immunities” (not inalienable rights) that bind us to corporate policy and burden us with taxes through contracts that were signed through “artificial ignorance” and willing consent.
Good points! Your sentence is worth of reading slowly and carefully, as it packs so much information!
through contracts that were signed through “artificial ignorance” and willing consent.
Imagine a country where the people are not bound by contract but by unilateral bonds: i.e. gifts.
How that is possible?
Quite simply: you coerce the parent under duress to do so, change the name of the child into a pronoun and the family name to the child's name and create this juridical person called Natural Person. On top, obfuscate the difference between right and law/statute. This creates a porter, a vessel, a transmitting utility carrying duties and privileges.
Most people in that country belief they are that Natural Person. And most of those who do not, cannot even comprehend that person actually means: by means of sound.
Any idea what country that is?
Hint: Deep State Central and it is not Switzerland.
within 3 days of the birth-event of a child, such child is subject to" geboorte aangifte" =aan - gifte. Literally: given to. Gifte equals the English word: Gift; geboorte is used in an adjective sense but because no article is used it is unclear weather birth as an event is used or born = the child. Of course parents do not have the right to give away their child into bondage.
A contract is jurisdiction in which two or more parties agreed to enter into. A gift is a unilateral (1-zijdig or one-sided) bond = ver-binte-nis). Since it is a gift, this creates a unilateral bond under public statue, and a public statute natural person, a transmitting utility, is created. This is akin to at the notaries where a juridical person is created. Just like every juridical person, the natural person is required to have a seat, i.e. an address. In the Dutch system is this the combination of postal code and housenumber. This process is done at the city level, called: ge-meen-te meaning: common-uni-ty.
Since a new entity under statute is created, a new name applies, as I explained in my previous post.
The word PERSON is derived from two Latin words: PER meaning by means of, and SONA meaning to sound.
It is often applied to actors wearing a mask to declaim certain ordinances of the gods.
In the same vein, we wear a mask for all intends and purposes. We are father, mother, child, tweeny, carpenter, athlete, etc.
SO, to agree such a view applies without objection.
This was the usual method of doing business. You want this amphora of wine: YES or NO. We as living beings a persons.
There are two words denoting the same thing in different states in Germanic Language: Lijf meaning the living body and equals to the English word Life. The pronunciation is the same. The other word: corps, the dead body is derived from corpora, corporate, equals to lichaam or Leichnahm in Germanic. In a way it is rather astonishing to consider that words: Marine Corps. Dead mariners, as opposed to a fine body of men has not yet been given a name change.
And as such, as a person, we are entitled to be regarded under law. However, not in the Netherlands as you can only be recognized IF and WHEN you** identify** (note the meaning this word) as a natural person, a dead body, with a client number issued by the State. (consider the word client carefully. It is also derived from Latin and it has nothing to do with business between free peoples!) and a false name. This way, a natural person can be forced to do things which are against his rights: it is called a porter or bearer of rights and duties. And the duties multiply, and the rights diminish. Of course.
Duties can only exist by means of a bond, either uni-lateral or multi-lateral. So the person is then called: the ingezetene (ingeseytene. This is a word from the middle ages. Certain city people were burgers, or citizens, called uitgeseytene, those who are no longer sat upon, may be a bit like a yoke was sat upon an animal of burden. De ingeseytene were eh ... lorded over, shall we say, and usually had no property)
There is a mix up of meaning in terms of: right, statute and law. A law cannot convey a right, a statute cannot convey a law, nor amend it. But it can infringe, abridge, contain its enjoyment. Hence they call the law/statute: right (recht) The whole system in that country is totally screwed up, because of it.
More than 8 weeks ago we were embroiled in a suit where the demand for a change of name on a rental contract with a public housing union was conducted. We explained the above and how in the Netherlands "fraus legis" is committed by the State of the Netherlands. "Fraus legis", which in The Netherlands is often used in tax cases, is also applied differently than was originally intended. Here, the law or statute is setup such that its intended use is the prohibition of enjoying a right. Fraus legis is put into law under 18-USC-241, 242 as a comparison.
Since we were not the party demanding, but only served as the expert witness, we were not in the position to do what we normally would do: get the Clerk to send us the concept for our consideration and revision of the ruling within 3 days of the court-day.
In the Netherlands then, usually, either of two things happen: 1. No ruling at all, postponed indefinitely, or 2. a false ruling. The latter is done by only granting the demand as sustained or rejected without consideration and weighing, as is obligatory by statute. For if they were to rule correctly, the system would come crashing down like a diseased temple.
The point is: The Netherlands operates under the provision of "legaliteits-beginsel" as is expressed in the UVRM, EVRM, EU-constitution, ICCPR. One might consider that the rule of law: so all things proceed according to law. No law? no process. In and of itself not a bad idea, except for one small thing: Every Dutch born of Dutch parents with a family tree back to before 1780 has a right to sovereignty under natural and INTERNATIONAL law.
That is fascinating, thank you for that insight and information. It also raises my suspicion, after beginning to understand the fraud within the United States and you explaining the similarities about the Netherlands, that many more countries are running this type of scam on their people.
Concerning person, I also find it interesting that the Bible states there is life and death from the tongue and in this case they use it in a way to say you didn’t speak up to claim your life or status so under the premise of parens patrae (or similar) we default you to the status of a ward of the state or the state as your guardian.
It would seem they are in a sense using the same premise from the 1666 cestui que vie act to claim your status as dead and therefore the state has sovereignty over your affairs and estate.
When I have a minute I’m going to look over this again, thank you. There are definitely a few things you brought up that catch my curiosity to dig deeper.
The interesting thing is, Before New York was named such, it was named: New Amsterdam. While intentions seemed right, by offering 300 slaves the possibility to learn trades, Dutch, become members of the reformed church, dress like "civilized people", the point was the Dutch there soon found out slavery did not work.
So, they changed the status of these people. Gave them Ha[a]rlem to inhabit, equal status before the law, could go anywhere they very well pleased. Only one slight difference: they owed taxes to the V.O.C. These people were therefor called: half-free. (think fisci = fiscus)
V.O.C was a corporation. And these people then, lived on the estate of the corporation, owing taxes to the domain. (think eminent domain). This seemed to work pretty well.
1795 created the basis on which this personhood as a dead-entity was introduced in Dutch law, by a french inspired revolution based on equality: so everyone was the same. (think 14th amendment)
However, the Oranges were already at it in 1780. Why? Because the Dutch were broke due to the 4th Anglo-Dutch war brought about by the 1776 Revolutionary war and Dutch support. It may very well be that the beneficum, or the land, was put into a trust, as a basis for financing stuff.
It is amazing how the battle is raging between Roman Law, Frankish Law, and German Law, and that finance is in essence: Roman Law.
I think it is very important to consider this idea that a slave is enslaved at the mental level moreso than the physical level.
You cannot REALLY enslave a person physically if you do not FIRST have him enslaved mentally. He will fight back. Only when you have enslaved his mind will he cooperate in his physical enslavement.
The black African tribal kings hunted down, captured, and put their fellow black brothers and sisters into chains so that they could be sold into slavery in exchange for a little gold and silver (enslavement for a little bling bling).
At that moment in time, the enslaved were physically restrained, but not mentally accepting their enslavement.
It was only over time that they became mentally enslaved, to the point where they accepted their physical enslavement. Then, they passed that way of thinking to their offspring, who never knew anything else.
Two quotes from former REAL slaves back then are instructive of this mental slavery:
When a slave sees a free man, he can think one of two thoughts: Either, 'There is a free man, why is he not a slave like me?' or 'There is a free man, why am I not free like he is?' -- Frederick Douglas
I could have freed more slaves, if only I could have convinced them that they were slaves. -- Harriet Tubman
This is the mindset of many people living in North Korea now. It is also the mindset of many peole in the "Land of the Free" today.
It was a genocidal invasion and attack of the Southern states, because they produced what the north could not. Zero southerners moved north, it was all attack from the north into the south. An invasion. They cut off the rail roads, blew them up, cut off communications, cut off food and supplies for the entire south. Raped and pillaged the women, children, slaves, families and elderly. Destroyed livestock and farms. They starved them to death if they didn’t kill them. One would be false hero Sherman. Who avoided conflict to do everything mentioned above. History sure has a reputation of being told differently than it was written. Then again, it’s rewritten during times such as the Civil War. And times like this exactly. Close your eyes and your common sense will tell you the real story.
Cotton was the only valuable export from the US at the time. The North had a massive economic collapse when it became clear that railroads would never get any returns on the investment.
What I meant was slavery was the norths reason to invade and destroy the south it was the perfect narrative to destroy states rights but thanks for the downtoot fren
Yep. Lots of genocidal stuff done under cover of war. This is cabal M.O. All Civil Wars are “engineered” to divide and conquer and many times atrocities are done by one side to their own people so they can blame it on the other side to keep the conflict going as long as possible. The “false flag” is not a recent invention.
Note that freeing the slaves was key to cabal banker property theft in the South because many plantations were mortgaged to buy slaves per cabal “mortgage” incentive program just prior to Civil War. When slaves were freed, plantation owners defaulted and bankers took ownership of the land. Those who refused to mortgage got their properties destroyed by thugs or battles.
Ty. One additional interesting Civil War factoid relative to TONA XIII “missing Amendment” disputed as fully ratified is that when the 11 Confederate states seceded, that put the “ratification percentage” of the remaining states over 3/4; Automatically Re-ratifying it fully by my count. I believe this is the reason for the flurry of “New State Constitutions” done just after Civil War (attempt to remove all evidence) and the 1871 Organic Act making DC a Extra Constitutional political entity, theoretically not subject to TONA XIII.
However state officials still subject to it 1871-1933; and this was attempted to be nullified 1933-1938 in states by replacement of Const Law with Corp Law (UCC) in violation of Article IV, Section 4 (Union state guarantees).
Lincoln was no hero, and was certainly not honest. He destroyed States Rights by going to war to prevent the succession of the southern states. This was in blatant violation of the voluntary compact that had created the confederation of sovereign states under the leadership of the founding fathers. Voluntary being key, with the right to secede if ever the need arose.
Slavery was already dying out in the south and was definitely not the reason for the war. It was just as the OP stated. The history we are taught is the version written by the tyrants, not real history, as it happened.
I happen to agree that this is the correct interpretation per the law: States may secede only if all other options have been exhausted and Federal Gov’t refuses to abide by the “rules and conditions of 19 delegated powers to the Fed Gov’t” (i.e. 1788 Const).
Note that small changes in state boundaries, new states, and combinations of existing states may turn out to be more effective than secession in making real, lasting change.
In your opinion, what else/how much has been rewritten? My fear is that future generations will not know what is happening now. Shit, the bulk of our CURRENT population is clueless. God bless. Thanks for your comment.
I say “partial hero” due to preservation of the Union and Constitution. The whole cabal objective of Civil War (besides war profiteering and asset theft of Southern property) was to get rid of Bill of Rights and Constitution and “perpetual Union” established by Articles of Confederation 1777.
Note that the battle over “states’ rights” started in 1832 under Andrew Jackson when South Carolina attempted to nullify a Federal Law over collection of duties from SC ports. Any of 19 specific enumerated duties of Fed gov’t listed in Constitution and delegated by the states cannot be claimed by states. The rest, they own per 9th, 10th Amendment.
And theoretically, the “perpetual Union” remains as long as at least two states remain in it.
Trying to decipher the Q breadcrumbs regarding military US and potential suspension of habeus corpus to discern what may happen in the very near future.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice, also known as UCMJ, is the primary legal code through which all internal military justice matters of the United States are governed. The UCMJ applies to all members of the military of the United States, including military retirees as well as members of other federal uniformed services (such as NOAA Corps and the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps) when attached to the military. The UCMJ was created by an act of the United States Congress in 1951 in order to establish relatively consistent systems of military justice in all branches of the nation's armed forces.
Jaksonville, FL named after its temporary early Governor Andrew Jackson, and NFL mascot abbr. JAGs. Jacksonville founded 15JUN 1822. NFL franchise founded 30NOV 1993, same day+month as Bush Sr death in 2018.
I have studied the Civil War. I live right where General Sheman and his men were headed to Savannah. I do not try to re-fight the Civil.
General Sherman And President Lincoln was war criminal, authorizing plunder and looting of civilian property. The March To The Sea from Atlanta to Savannah was the pillage and raping of women by his soldiers. Condrerfate soldiers from the area were with General Robert E. Lee in Virginia. The war was called "Total War."
One example of a war crime was the massacre at Ebenezer Creek. The formerly enslaved African Americans followed Gen. Sherman at the end of his soldiers. Gen. Sheram was pissed because the formerly enslaved people were slowing him down. Anywhere between 2000 and 6,00 were left to freeze to death in the creek and marshes of Ebenezer Creek outside of Savannah, Ga.
One Gen Shearms got to Savannah. The leaders of Savannah meet Gen Sherman outside of Savannah. They begged him not to destroy their town. Conderfate General Hardee had already fleed Savannah with his 10,000 soldiers.
General Sherman saved his worse for last. He burnt down building churches and schools. It all. 80% of Columbia S.C. was scorched. General Sherman said Columbia was the seat of power that started the rebellion. Furthermore, he was going to punish them the most.
This is a very brief overview of the war.
Nice detail. And yet another example of why war should be avoided at all costs if possible because it removes all constraints on human behavior and encourages atrocities on other humans in the name of "victory". This is why it is such a terrible and effective cabal weapon.
Ty. It has been germinating for a while. Recently able to put enough pieces together to turn it into something useful. It is a bit of a “spinoff” on 12 months of TONA research per 1825 Military Laws doc coupled with study of 2020 published DoD Law of War manual being done for Pro Se litigation prep.
General Orders No. 100 : The Lieber Code
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE FIELD
Prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Orders No. 100 by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863.
Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, prepared by Francis Lieber, LL.D., Originally Issued as General Orders No. 100, Adjutant General's Office, 1863, Washington 1898: Government Printing Office.
Table of ContentsArticles
Section I. Martial Law - Military jurisdiction - Military necessity - Retaliation.1-30
Section II. Public and private property of the enemy -
Protection of persons, and especially of women, of religion, the arts and sciences -
Punishment of crimes against the inhabitants of hostile countries.31-47
Section III. Deserters - Prisoners of war - Hostages - Booty on the battlefield.48-80
Section IV. Partisans - Armed enemies not belonging to the hostile army -
Scouts- Armed prowlers - War-rebels.81-85
Section V. Safe-conduct - Spies - War-traitors -
Captured messengers - Abuse of the flag of truce.86-104
Section VI. Exchange of prisoners - Flags of truce - Flags of protection105-118
Section VII. The Parole119-134
Section VIII. Armistice - Capitulation135-147
Section IX. Assassination148
Section X. Insurrection - Civil War - Rebellion149-157
Martial Law - Military jurisdiction - Military necessity - Retaliation
Article 1.
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.
The presence of a hostile army proclaims its Martial Law.
Art. 2.
Martial Law does not cease during the hostile occupation, except by special proclamation, ordered by the commander in chief; or by special mention in the treaty of peace concluding the war, when the occupation of a place or territory continues beyond the conclusion of peace as one of the conditions of the same.
Art. 3.
Martial Law in a hostile country consists in the suspension, by the occupying military authority, of the criminal and civil law, and of the domestic administration and government in the occupied place or territory, and in the substitution of military rule and force for the same, as well as in the dictation of general laws, as far as military necessity requires this suspension, substitution, or dictation.
The commander of the forces may proclaim that the administration of all civil and penal law shall continue either wholly or in part, as in times of peace, unless otherwise ordered by the military authority.
Art. 4.
Martial Law is simply military authority exercised in accordance with the laws and usages of war. Military oppression is not Martial Law: it is the abuse of the power which that law confers. As Martial Law is executed by military force, it is incumbent upon those who administer it to be strictly guided by the principles of justice, honor, and humanity - virtues adorning a soldier even more than other men, for the very reason that he possesses the power of his arms against the unarmed.
CONTEXT: Possible insight into how Lincoln was running the "wartime government" using the Military US, rather than the Civil US which went bankrupt in 1861 with this 1863 published document.
TDLR: Tying together Law of War need that seemed to be "inspired" by the War of 1812 and the Civil War actions of Lincoln using this very "Law of War" to run the country starting 1861. It clearly was needed due to the continuous infiltration of foreign enemies from Britain, including bankers. This same sort of infiltration is what Andrew Jackson was fighting with the abolishing and liquidation of Bank #2 1829-1841; And clearly Lincoln was fighting it as well as there was infiltration leading up to and during the Civil War starting about 1851.
Authorized by Secretary of War Simon Cameron, published by United States, War Department via Government Printing Office, 1863:
Hi-Res PDF scan, 604 pages, https://archive.org/details/101556516.nlm.nih.gov/page/n5/mode/2up
Here is an 1815 Version 0 of "Law of War" which is basically documenting War Department Regulations: https://archive.org/details/actestablishingr00unit/page/n5/mode/2up
And here is the 1825 update authorized by John C. Calhoun, Secretary of War, on 30DEC 1824, and likely published prior to 04MAR 1825 inauguration of John Quincy Adams: https://archive.org/details/militarylawsuni00deptgoog/page/n54/mode/2up [University of Michigan collection is source of this one. NOTE: TONA Amendment XIII is present after 6 more states ratified it between 1819 and 1824 https://greatawakening.win/p/16b690DoWm/preview-confirmation-of-amendmen/]
There is a second edition published in 1838, also by Trueman Cross; https://archive.org/details/0262130.nlm.nih.gov/page/n45/mode/2up NOTE: This one has TONA Amendment XIII removed.
And there is a 3rd edition from 1846, by CAPTAIN A. It. HETZEL, U. S. ARMY; Note this one says "Washington City", and not "Washington" or "Washington D.C." by GEORGE TEMPLEMAN (publisher)
https://archive.org/details/militarylawsuni00statgoog/page/n50/mode/2up NOTE: This one has TONA Amendment XIII removed.
29MAY 2020; “Abraham Lincoln’s Cabinet” by Lindsay M. Chervinsky (White House Historian): https://www.whitehousehistory.org/abraham-lincolns-cabinet
TONA XIII Shenanigans and the War of 1812 as impetus for Law of War and counter-infiltration tactics of the United States and its military
Once fully ratified, an Amendment can only be removed with another Amendment (which does not exist). States CANNOT "unratify, once they ratify. Clearly some cabal shenanigans going on here regarding TONA XIII, imo; Iowa was new state on 28DEC 1846 with ratification still over 0.75; Did Texas join on 29DEC 1846 to make it appear less than 3/4 of states had ratified? Still looking into whether Texas ratified or not. Many historical documents were intentionally destroyed in the Civil War, especially in the Confederate States, of which Texas was one.
Official history of War of 1812 ordered per Act of Congress. Look for references to infiltrators and compromised people and other relevant nuggets justifying Law of War:
2nd edition (1816) Joseph Smyth publisher, BELFAST; Original edition 1815, by John Low, NEW YORK:
https://archive.org/details/impartialcorr00ocon/page/n3/mode/2up
Excellent!
Very interesting! Great research!
Very good dig and research. Well done.
Hopefully, the DS/cabal can be destroyed this time, world-wide... so none of this ever happens again. [They] all need to be exterminated.
Interesting stuff,
I came across this interesting article a little while ago about the Guys who found the documents and a little history behind it.
http://usavsus.info/usA--Original13thAmend.htm
My questions lead me to doubt the loyalty of Lincoln. I am still trying to sort out the facts about Lincoln as there are several things that stand out as we sort through history. Lincoln was a member of the B.a.r and held the foreign title of esquire. Under the original 13th amendment that was written and signed but was mysteriously swept under the rug and not recognized, He would not be able to be president while holding a foreign title and having sworn an oath to a foreign state or organization such as the b.a.r. This would make it appear that he was the foreign puppet that infiltrated our government.
Was he still a member of the b.a.r while in office? Who does the b.a.r serve? The crown. I.e Bankers? Can you serve two masters? Which oath would supersede? Why did the establishment of the banking cabal firmly take control of this country so easily, immediately following the foundations Lincoln put in place?
Was the establishment of martial law a good thing for this country? Was the creation of executive order and corporate bureaucracy a good thing?
History is a weapon, if we don’t sort it out, it will be used against us in a court of law.
I’m not sure that’s the very best argument, and here’s why I would say that The tribes across the country knew we were in a civil war and so the raids and massacres upon settlers, men women and children, exploded during that period. One could argue that the actions of the army against certain tribes after the civil war were reactionary and provoked.
You should research how imaginative, creative and brutal many North American tribes were at torturing their captives and how much they enjoyed raping, plundering, murdering and slave trading.
I’m not defending the genocide that did in fact take place, but in a world of guns, germs and steel you can’t claim victim and innocence after you take up arms and are/were defeated in battle. Warlords of a country got conquered by the invading warlords of another. Does it make it right, I guess that’s debatable, to me it just means that the settlers who the Indians began waging war upon were backed by bigger stronger warlords than the Indians and the Indians lost.
Bringing it back to the North and the South The problem lies in the obfuscation and fog of war where we find high ranking characters within both sides, who would seem to be playing for the same team and it wasn’t “we the people”.
All good points. Lincoln was from a cabal family. That seems very high probability, and he likely never would have been elected if not. His wife may have been his "handler" as she also appeared to be from a cabal family.
Clearly Lincoln did something very specific counter to what he was instructed to do, and this is why they killed him. We will figure it all out eventually, but for now Lincoln is a "mixed bag", imo, doing some very good Union preservation and Constitution preservation things. Note that the corruptive part of history is when leaders at the top get blamed for 100% of the bad shit that unfolds during a war, some of which is engineered for that exact purpose.
Got my attention fren, "History as a weapon, Every action and inaction got us where we are now. Can it really be sorted out?
“Can it be sorted out”
That is a very deep question and it seems the more one digs the more one uncovers a tangled web of lies and corruption, which most people don’t want to sort through so they give up.
I would add they not only use history as a weapon but our ignorance of language.
https://rumble.com/v10w2xh-david-straight-out-of-babylon-part-1-of-8.html
If you have not come across this conference, it is a wealth of knowledge and information and I highly recommend digging into what is presented. I’ll suggest getting a note pad from the beginning because once you get into it you’ll tell yourself you need it.
After watching it, you should have a much better understanding of how it ties into Lincoln and the era and timeframe we are discussing in this thread and hopefully it clarifies what I meant by how they use our ignorance of both language and history against us. Courts are their battlefield of choice and they have done everything they can to rig it in their favor.
My opinion is that what is presented in this conference is one of the most powerful solutions and explanations of how we take back and restore our Republic from the ground up that I have come across.
OP this is so good IMHO there should be an additional .win just for digs and research of this magnitude and quality. Not that GAW folks shouldn't see it, but so it would be more easily accessed when seeking this level of engagement, the autist/baker/dig level of info apart from the enjoyable and important memes and jokes, miscellaneous items tangential to Q, and everything else not like this that still forms a vital part of the Great Awakening. Anything at 'Dig2.win' or whatever could of course be posted at GAW as well for broader exposure
That's how good this stuff is
That's literally what this win is supposed to be for.
True but it's evolved into a variety emporium
Crazy CatFive's Amazing Emporium of Total Posting Madness.
I am going to read that book about the war of 1812. Thanks for sharing. I just perused he first few pages and found this, quote:
Wow. Amazing extract.
That is an interesting insight and seems to explain the exact reasoning and basis on how and why you could get away with creating a status of “citizen” with the description of “person” to deprive “We the People” into voluntarily giving up our Inalienable God given rights as Men and Women in exchange for a membership into the corporation of 1871 as a “person” who receives “privileges” and “immunities” (not inalienable rights) that bind us to corporate policy and burden us with taxes through contracts that were signed through “artificial ignorance” and willing consent.
Good points! Your sentence is worth of reading slowly and carefully, as it packs so much information!
Imagine a country where the people are not bound by contract but by unilateral bonds: i.e. gifts.
How that is possible?
Quite simply: you coerce the parent under duress to do so, change the name of the child into a pronoun and the family name to the child's name and create this juridical person called Natural Person. On top, obfuscate the difference between right and law/statute. This creates a porter, a vessel, a transmitting utility carrying duties and privileges.
Most people in that country belief they are that Natural Person. And most of those who do not, cannot even comprehend that person actually means: by means of sound.
Any idea what country that is?
Hint: Deep State Central and it is not Switzerland.
From the hint my guess would be Sweden.
From the description I have no clue.
Unilateral bonds. I.e gifts Someone leveraging credit on your behalf at birth and you are now bound to its debt?
By means of sound? That is an interesting statement, can you you explain that further?
Country is The Netherlands.
within 3 days of the birth-event of a child, such child is subject to" geboorte aangifte" =aan - gifte. Literally: given to. Gifte equals the English word: Gift; geboorte is used in an adjective sense but because no article is used it is unclear weather birth as an event is used or born = the child. Of course parents do not have the right to give away their child into bondage.
A contract is jurisdiction in which two or more parties agreed to enter into. A gift is a unilateral (1-zijdig or one-sided) bond = ver-binte-nis). Since it is a gift, this creates a unilateral bond under public statue, and a public statute natural person, a transmitting utility, is created. This is akin to at the notaries where a juridical person is created. Just like every juridical person, the natural person is required to have a seat, i.e. an address. In the Dutch system is this the combination of postal code and housenumber. This process is done at the city level, called: ge-meen-te meaning: common-uni-ty.
Since a new entity under statute is created, a new name applies, as I explained in my previous post.
The word PERSON is derived from two Latin words: PER meaning by means of, and SONA meaning to sound.
It is often applied to actors wearing a mask to declaim certain ordinances of the gods. In the same vein, we wear a mask for all intends and purposes. We are father, mother, child, tweeny, carpenter, athlete, etc. SO, to agree such a view applies without objection.
This was the usual method of doing business. You want this amphora of wine: YES or NO. We as living beings a persons. There are two words denoting the same thing in different states in Germanic Language: Lijf meaning the living body and equals to the English word Life. The pronunciation is the same. The other word: corps, the dead body is derived from corpora, corporate, equals to lichaam or Leichnahm in Germanic. In a way it is rather astonishing to consider that words: Marine Corps. Dead mariners, as opposed to a fine body of men has not yet been given a name change.
And as such, as a person, we are entitled to be regarded under law. However, not in the Netherlands as you can only be recognized IF and WHEN you** identify** (note the meaning this word) as a natural person, a dead body, with a client number issued by the State. (consider the word client carefully. It is also derived from Latin and it has nothing to do with business between free peoples!) and a false name. This way, a natural person can be forced to do things which are against his rights: it is called a porter or bearer of rights and duties. And the duties multiply, and the rights diminish. Of course.
Duties can only exist by means of a bond, either uni-lateral or multi-lateral. So the person is then called: the ingezetene (ingeseytene. This is a word from the middle ages. Certain city people were burgers, or citizens, called uitgeseytene, those who are no longer sat upon, may be a bit like a yoke was sat upon an animal of burden. De ingeseytene were eh ... lorded over, shall we say, and usually had no property)
There is a mix up of meaning in terms of: right, statute and law. A law cannot convey a right, a statute cannot convey a law, nor amend it. But it can infringe, abridge, contain its enjoyment. Hence they call the law/statute: right (recht) The whole system in that country is totally screwed up, because of it.
More than 8 weeks ago we were embroiled in a suit where the demand for a change of name on a rental contract with a public housing union was conducted. We explained the above and how in the Netherlands "fraus legis" is committed by the State of the Netherlands. "Fraus legis", which in The Netherlands is often used in tax cases, is also applied differently than was originally intended. Here, the law or statute is setup such that its intended use is the prohibition of enjoying a right. Fraus legis is put into law under 18-USC-241, 242 as a comparison.
Since we were not the party demanding, but only served as the expert witness, we were not in the position to do what we normally would do: get the Clerk to send us the concept for our consideration and revision of the ruling within 3 days of the court-day.
In the Netherlands then, usually, either of two things happen: 1. No ruling at all, postponed indefinitely, or 2. a false ruling. The latter is done by only granting the demand as sustained or rejected without consideration and weighing, as is obligatory by statute. For if they were to rule correctly, the system would come crashing down like a diseased temple.
The point is: The Netherlands operates under the provision of "legaliteits-beginsel" as is expressed in the UVRM, EVRM, EU-constitution, ICCPR. One might consider that the rule of law: so all things proceed according to law. No law? no process. In and of itself not a bad idea, except for one small thing: Every Dutch born of Dutch parents with a family tree back to before 1780 has a right to sovereignty under natural and INTERNATIONAL law.
That is fascinating, thank you for that insight and information. It also raises my suspicion, after beginning to understand the fraud within the United States and you explaining the similarities about the Netherlands, that many more countries are running this type of scam on their people.
Concerning person, I also find it interesting that the Bible states there is life and death from the tongue and in this case they use it in a way to say you didn’t speak up to claim your life or status so under the premise of parens patrae (or similar) we default you to the status of a ward of the state or the state as your guardian.
It would seem they are in a sense using the same premise from the 1666 cestui que vie act to claim your status as dead and therefore the state has sovereignty over your affairs and estate.
When I have a minute I’m going to look over this again, thank you. There are definitely a few things you brought up that catch my curiosity to dig deeper.
The interesting thing is, Before New York was named such, it was named: New Amsterdam. While intentions seemed right, by offering 300 slaves the possibility to learn trades, Dutch, become members of the reformed church, dress like "civilized people", the point was the Dutch there soon found out slavery did not work.
So, they changed the status of these people. Gave them Ha[a]rlem to inhabit, equal status before the law, could go anywhere they very well pleased. Only one slight difference: they owed taxes to the V.O.C. These people were therefor called: half-free. (think fisci = fiscus)
V.O.C was a corporation. And these people then, lived on the estate of the corporation, owing taxes to the domain. (think eminent domain). This seemed to work pretty well.
1795 created the basis on which this personhood as a dead-entity was introduced in Dutch law, by a french inspired revolution based on equality: so everyone was the same. (think 14th amendment)
However, the Oranges were already at it in 1780. Why? Because the Dutch were broke due to the 4th Anglo-Dutch war brought about by the 1776 Revolutionary war and Dutch support. It may very well be that the beneficum, or the land, was put into a trust, as a basis for financing stuff.
It is amazing how the battle is raging between Roman Law, Frankish Law, and German Law, and that finance is in essence: Roman Law.
I think it is very important to consider this idea that a slave is enslaved at the mental level moreso than the physical level.
You cannot REALLY enslave a person physically if you do not FIRST have him enslaved mentally. He will fight back. Only when you have enslaved his mind will he cooperate in his physical enslavement.
The black African tribal kings hunted down, captured, and put their fellow black brothers and sisters into chains so that they could be sold into slavery in exchange for a little gold and silver (enslavement for a little bling bling).
At that moment in time, the enslaved were physically restrained, but not mentally accepting their enslavement.
It was only over time that they became mentally enslaved, to the point where they accepted their physical enslavement. Then, they passed that way of thinking to their offspring, who never knew anything else.
Two quotes from former REAL slaves back then are instructive of this mental slavery:
This is the mindset of many people living in North Korea now. It is also the mindset of many peole in the "Land of the Free" today.
THAT is the heart of the matter.
It was a genocidal invasion and attack of the Southern states, because they produced what the north could not. Zero southerners moved north, it was all attack from the north into the south. An invasion. They cut off the rail roads, blew them up, cut off communications, cut off food and supplies for the entire south. Raped and pillaged the women, children, slaves, families and elderly. Destroyed livestock and farms. They starved them to death if they didn’t kill them. One would be false hero Sherman. Who avoided conflict to do everything mentioned above. History sure has a reputation of being told differently than it was written. Then again, it’s rewritten during times such as the Civil War. And times like this exactly. Close your eyes and your common sense will tell you the real story.
Like? Honest question--I'm from Texas.
Cotton.
Cotton was the only valuable export from the US at the time. The North had a massive economic collapse when it became clear that railroads would never get any returns on the investment.
Sounds like the North had a lot to offer too, doesn't it?
States rights ! That is what the north took away. Slavery was a ways and means
What I meant was slavery was the norths reason to invade and destroy the south it was the perfect narrative to destroy states rights but thanks for the downtoot fren
This is why slavery's abolition was inevitable, thanks to technological advances.
Pick your own damn cotton, white man.
💥😎
Yep. Lots of genocidal stuff done under cover of war. This is cabal M.O. All Civil Wars are “engineered” to divide and conquer and many times atrocities are done by one side to their own people so they can blame it on the other side to keep the conflict going as long as possible. The “false flag” is not a recent invention.
Note that freeing the slaves was key to cabal banker property theft in the South because many plantations were mortgaged to buy slaves per cabal “mortgage” incentive program just prior to Civil War. When slaves were freed, plantation owners defaulted and bankers took ownership of the land. Those who refused to mortgage got their properties destroyed by thugs or battles.
What a great post. Thx for the research, fren!
Ty. One additional interesting Civil War factoid relative to TONA XIII “missing Amendment” disputed as fully ratified is that when the 11 Confederate states seceded, that put the “ratification percentage” of the remaining states over 3/4; Automatically Re-ratifying it fully by my count. I believe this is the reason for the flurry of “New State Constitutions” done just after Civil War (attempt to remove all evidence) and the 1871 Organic Act making DC a Extra Constitutional political entity, theoretically not subject to TONA XIII.
However state officials still subject to it 1871-1933; and this was attempted to be nullified 1933-1938 in states by replacement of Const Law with Corp Law (UCC) in violation of Article IV, Section 4 (Union state guarantees).
Wow! Thank you for taking the time to put all this together.
Lincoln was no hero, and was certainly not honest. He destroyed States Rights by going to war to prevent the succession of the southern states. This was in blatant violation of the voluntary compact that had created the confederation of sovereign states under the leadership of the founding fathers. Voluntary being key, with the right to secede if ever the need arose.
Slavery was already dying out in the south and was definitely not the reason for the war. It was just as the OP stated. The history we are taught is the version written by the tyrants, not real history, as it happened.
The history we read was written by the North on SECESSION. States had the right to secede from a tyrannical government. That applies today.
I happen to agree that this is the correct interpretation per the law: States may secede only if all other options have been exhausted and Federal Gov’t refuses to abide by the “rules and conditions of 19 delegated powers to the Fed Gov’t” (i.e. 1788 Const).
Note that small changes in state boundaries, new states, and combinations of existing states may turn out to be more effective than secession in making real, lasting change.
In your opinion, what else/how much has been rewritten? My fear is that future generations will not know what is happening now. Shit, the bulk of our CURRENT population is clueless. God bless. Thanks for your comment.
Excellent truth here be prepared for the down votes, truth hurts! even to those that think they know all on this group
I say “partial hero” due to preservation of the Union and Constitution. The whole cabal objective of Civil War (besides war profiteering and asset theft of Southern property) was to get rid of Bill of Rights and Constitution and “perpetual Union” established by Articles of Confederation 1777.
Note that the battle over “states’ rights” started in 1832 under Andrew Jackson when South Carolina attempted to nullify a Federal Law over collection of duties from SC ports. Any of 19 specific enumerated duties of Fed gov’t listed in Constitution and delegated by the states cannot be claimed by states. The rest, they own per 9th, 10th Amendment.
And theoretically, the “perpetual Union” remains as long as at least two states remain in it.
What a great read, and commentary. You all are opening eyes/minds with your thoughtful dialogue and excellent posts. Thanks GAW… bigly
Trying to decipher the Q breadcrumbs regarding military US and potential suspension of habeus corpus to discern what may happen in the very near future.
Been watching them Gitmo flights, eh?
Yep. Since March 2020. Like clockwork. Tuesdays and Thursdays, regular flights Jacksonville to GITMO. And what is in Jacksonville, FL?
Just this: Judge Advocate General's Corps (JAGs): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Advocate_General%27s_Corps
Jaksonville, FL named after its temporary early Governor Andrew Jackson, and NFL mascot abbr. JAGs. Jacksonville founded 15JUN 1822. NFL franchise founded 30NOV 1993, same day+month as Bush Sr death in 2018.
I'm so interested in all of this. Trying to metabolize it is a little overwhelming! I did catch something in 47 US CODE 606. I'll send you a pm.
I have studied the Civil War. I live right where General Sheman and his men were headed to Savannah. I do not try to re-fight the Civil. General Sherman And President Lincoln was war criminal, authorizing plunder and looting of civilian property. The March To The Sea from Atlanta to Savannah was the pillage and raping of women by his soldiers. Condrerfate soldiers from the area were with General Robert E. Lee in Virginia. The war was called "Total War." One example of a war crime was the massacre at Ebenezer Creek. The formerly enslaved African Americans followed Gen. Sherman at the end of his soldiers. Gen. Sheram was pissed because the formerly enslaved people were slowing him down. Anywhere between 2000 and 6,00 were left to freeze to death in the creek and marshes of Ebenezer Creek outside of Savannah, Ga. One Gen Shearms got to Savannah. The leaders of Savannah meet Gen Sherman outside of Savannah. They begged him not to destroy their town. Conderfate General Hardee had already fleed Savannah with his 10,000 soldiers. General Sherman saved his worse for last. He burnt down building churches and schools. It all. 80% of Columbia S.C. was scorched. General Sherman said Columbia was the seat of power that started the rebellion. Furthermore, he was going to punish them the most. This is a very brief overview of the war.
Nice detail. And yet another example of why war should be avoided at all costs if possible because it removes all constraints on human behavior and encourages atrocities on other humans in the name of "victory". This is why it is such a terrible and effective cabal weapon.
Fascinating post! High effort research! Thanks fren! ✨👏
Ty. It has been germinating for a while. Recently able to put enough pieces together to turn it into something useful. It is a bit of a “spinoff” on 12 months of TONA research per 1825 Military Laws doc coupled with study of 2020 published DoD Law of War manual being done for Pro Se litigation prep.
Lincoln's LIEBER CODE
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lieber.asp
General Orders No. 100 : The Lieber Code INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE FIELD Prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Orders No. 100 by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863.
Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, prepared by Francis Lieber, LL.D., Originally Issued as General Orders No. 100, Adjutant General's Office, 1863, Washington 1898: Government Printing Office.
Table of ContentsArticles Section I. Martial Law - Military jurisdiction - Military necessity - Retaliation.1-30 Section II. Public and private property of the enemy - Protection of persons, and especially of women, of religion, the arts and sciences - Punishment of crimes against the inhabitants of hostile countries.31-47 Section III. Deserters - Prisoners of war - Hostages - Booty on the battlefield.48-80 Section IV. Partisans - Armed enemies not belonging to the hostile army - Scouts- Armed prowlers - War-rebels.81-85 Section V. Safe-conduct - Spies - War-traitors - Captured messengers - Abuse of the flag of truce.86-104 Section VI. Exchange of prisoners - Flags of truce - Flags of protection105-118 Section VII. The Parole119-134 Section VIII. Armistice - Capitulation135-147 Section IX. Assassination148 Section X. Insurrection - Civil War - Rebellion149-157
Martial Law - Military jurisdiction - Military necessity - Retaliation Article 1. 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.
The presence of a hostile army proclaims its Martial Law.
Art. 2. Martial Law does not cease during the hostile occupation, except by special proclamation, ordered by the commander in chief; or by special mention in the treaty of peace concluding the war, when the occupation of a place or territory continues beyond the conclusion of peace as one of the conditions of the same.
Art. 3. Martial Law in a hostile country consists in the suspension, by the occupying military authority, of the criminal and civil law, and of the domestic administration and government in the occupied place or territory, and in the substitution of military rule and force for the same, as well as in the dictation of general laws, as far as military necessity requires this suspension, substitution, or dictation.
The commander of the forces may proclaim that the administration of all civil and penal law shall continue either wholly or in part, as in times of peace, unless otherwise ordered by the military authority.
Art. 4. Martial Law is simply military authority exercised in accordance with the laws and usages of war. Military oppression is not Martial Law: it is the abuse of the power which that law confers. As Martial Law is executed by military force, it is incumbent upon those who administer it to be strictly guided by the principles of justice, honor, and humanity - virtues adorning a soldier even more than other men, for the very reason that he possesses the power of his arms against the unarmed.
Commenting to find later.
Solid work anon. Wish I could digest it all now but I'm on the road.
Someone......remind me pls.
A brilliant effort researching and collating all this interesting information, fren. Very much appreciated.