I read through it (almost all of it, though it can be sleep inducing at points), but I didn't find anything that led to any implication of bankruptcy of the US. Nor do I see how this tied into the Organic Act of 1871. Not to say they aren't related, I just didn't see anything on a reading of it.
This Treaty is regarding the Alabama Claims, which is itself a very interesting tidbit about the civil war not taught in school:
The United States demanded compensation from Britain for the damage wrought by the British-built, Southern-operated commerce raiders, based upon the argument that the British Government, by aiding the creation of a Confederate Navy, had inadequately followed its neutrality laws. The damages discussed were enormous. Charles Sumner, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, argued that British aid to the Confederacy had prolonged the Civil War by 2 years, and indirectly cost the United States hundreds of millions, or even billions of dollars (the figure Sumner suggested was $2.125 billion).
This led to the Treaty of Washington which laid the groundwork for our system of International Law (which is to say, a One World Government) and is tied to the creation of the League of Nations (later called the United Nations).
The link above says this about the resolution:
At Geneva, in 1872, the United States was awarded $15,500,000 pursuant to the terms of the treaty, and the British apologized for the destruction caused by the British-built Confederate ships but admitted no guilt. However, no compensation for damages done to the U.S. by British-built blockade runners carrying arms supplies to the Confederacy (which prolonged the war by two years and killed 400,000 additional Americans) was offered.
The ties to the League of Nations/UN are particularly interesting. If it walks like Bankster fuckery, and talks like Bankster fuckery, it's probably fuckery of the Bankster variety.
Still, the details of how this document relates to the supposed bankruptcy of the USA or the creation of the D.C. city-state eludes me.
My sentiments too. How is this relevant to being taken over by a corporation? If this treaty does somehow say that, then their obfuscation approaches the craft of wizardry.
I read the whole thing, nothing in it talks about converting the us republic to a corporation... its long, boring, and terse. I'd love to hear if anyone has some other official document ..
I am not sure what "meaning" you are talking about. If you mean the document provided, I look at everything through the lens of BLD. Not that I've memorized the entire BLD, but I have read so much of it, and so much of US law in general, I understand fairly well what things mean "within the law" just on cursory examination. Not to suggest that I will necessarily catch everything, but it is always the lens through which I read.
I agree that using BLD is (generally) the best way to interpret the law (because that is how it is done in our courts), but the surrounding context of society at the time is also crucial. In this case however, the document linked to is not complicated (at least not in any obvious way) and in no way provides any link to the D.C. municipal corporation (never mentioned or alluded to) nor does it discuss US bankruptcy. On the contrary, it seems very focused on getting reparations from Britain, through Treaty, for it's complicity in damages during the Civil War.
That doesn't mean there is no connection given some larger context, but that larger context is not contained within the document itself as far as I could find.
The larger context is the United States Corporation and the British Crown renegotiated everything, including fishing rights, because the United States Corporation was a new entity.
No special twists of meaning when the entire subject matter of the treaty concerns debts, territory boundaries, and the appointment of commissioners to determine details. (I went through all 43 articles.)
Did you read the treaty? Prove me wrong. Distressingly typical response of a know-nothing: avoid the actual issue and cast an imprecation against the speaker.
I scanned all 43 articles. You are correct. There is no sauce here for the whole subject of a "U.S. corporation" or any subjugation to the English crown or the Vatican. This is a closet that contains only bats and cobwebs.
I read through it (almost all of it, though it can be sleep inducing at points), but I didn't find anything that led to any implication of bankruptcy of the US. Nor do I see how this tied into the Organic Act of 1871. Not to say they aren't related, I just didn't see anything on a reading of it.
This Treaty is regarding the Alabama Claims, which is itself a very interesting tidbit about the civil war not taught in school:
This led to the Treaty of Washington which laid the groundwork for our system of International Law (which is to say, a One World Government) and is tied to the creation of the League of Nations (later called the United Nations).
The link above says this about the resolution:
The ties to the League of Nations/UN are particularly interesting. If it walks like Bankster fuckery, and talks like Bankster fuckery, it's probably fuckery of the Bankster variety.
Still, the details of how this document relates to the supposed bankruptcy of the USA or the creation of the D.C. city-state eludes me.
My sentiments too. How is this relevant to being taken over by a corporation? If this treaty does somehow say that, then their obfuscation approaches the craft of wizardry.
I read the whole thing, nothing in it talks about converting the us republic to a corporation... its long, boring, and terse. I'd love to hear if anyone has some other official document ..
Are you going by common definitions of words, or using Black's Law Dictionary to break down the meaning?
Makes a big difference.
I am not sure what "meaning" you are talking about. If you mean the document provided, I look at everything through the lens of BLD. Not that I've memorized the entire BLD, but I have read so much of it, and so much of US law in general, I understand fairly well what things mean "within the law" just on cursory examination. Not to suggest that I will necessarily catch everything, but it is always the lens through which I read.
I agree that using BLD is (generally) the best way to interpret the law (because that is how it is done in our courts), but the surrounding context of society at the time is also crucial. In this case however, the document linked to is not complicated (at least not in any obvious way) and in no way provides any link to the D.C. municipal corporation (never mentioned or alluded to) nor does it discuss US bankruptcy. On the contrary, it seems very focused on getting reparations from Britain, through Treaty, for it's complicity in damages during the Civil War.
That doesn't mean there is no connection given some larger context, but that larger context is not contained within the document itself as far as I could find.
The larger context is the United States Corporation and the British Crown renegotiated everything, including fishing rights, because the United States Corporation was a new entity.
Ground rules had to be established.
No special twists of meaning when the entire subject matter of the treaty concerns debts, territory boundaries, and the appointment of commissioners to determine details. (I went through all 43 articles.)
You don't even believe Q's real.
Nobody cares.
Did you read the treaty? Prove me wrong. Distressingly typical response of a know-nothing: avoid the actual issue and cast an imprecation against the speaker.
Bankster fuckery is the only plausible thing I see in this 1871 stuff. Maybe the 1871 incantations mean something to the DS cult bankers.
I scanned all 43 articles. You are correct. There is no sauce here for the whole subject of a "U.S. corporation" or any subjugation to the English crown or the Vatican. This is a closet that contains only bats and cobwebs.