I've seen Trump call for the Fed to take over D.C. several times this year(as recent as this week according to Posobiec). I have been wondering if this would satisfy the condition listed in 11.3 End of Occupation.
Belligerent occupation ends when the Occupying Power no longer has effectively placed the occupied territory under its control. 83 For example, an uprising by the local population may prevent the Occupying Power from actually enforcing its authority over occupied territory. Similarly, the Occupying Power’s expulsion or complete withdrawal from the territory would also suffice because the former Occupying Power generally would not be able to control sufficiently the occupied territory
Question is if the Fed taking over D.C. would count as "Occupying Power’s expulsion"
Maybe it could but the plan won't be executed that way so this might be Trump doing a little trolling?
NO WAY I CAN GET A FAIR TRIAL, OR EVEN CLOSE TO A FAIR TRIAL, IN WASHINGTON, D.C. THERE ARE MANY REASONS FOR THIS, BUT JUST ONE IS THAT I AM CALLING FOR A FEDERAL TAKEOVER OF THIS FILTHY AND CRIME RIDDEN EMBARRASSMENT TO OUR NATION, WHERE MURDERS HAVE JUST SHATTERED THE ALL TIME RECORD, OTHER VIOLENT CRIMES HAVE NEVER NEEN WORSE, AND TOURISTS HAVE FLED. THE FEDERAL TAKEOVER IS VERY UNPOPULAR WITH POTENTIAL AREA JURORS, BUT NECESSARY FOR SAFETY, GREATNESS, & FOR ALL THE WORLD TO SEE! https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/110842818676745785
Washington D.C. is NOT IN the US. It is NOT PART of the US. It is a separate country with its own flag, it's own constitution etc... How can there be a US court in a foreign country? Is the purpose of holding a Trump trial in D.C. to EXPOSE these facts?
Washington DC is absolutely part of the "US". It is owned by the government of the United States. It is indebted to foreign interests, and thus has legal obligations, but it is owned by the governmental corporation we call the United States of America. This is the same governmental corporation that was created by the Constitution of 1787.
The US Constitution is really just a Treaty. It's a rather comprehensive treaty, but it is still a Treaty. It is more appropriate to think of the US Govt and the people that have the job of "running" the govt. as being the executors of a Treaty of Sovereign States (50 of them). The US Govt (a governmental corporation) owns the land of DC, thus it is "Foreign" to all the states. But all the States are also "foreign" to each other, because they are all Sovereign Entities (which means Ultimate Authority of some specific Jurisdiction). The US Govt is, in relation to the Sovereign States, a manager of the Treaty of States.
DC is absolutely a part of the US. The problem that most people have with this, is that they don't understand what a "governmental corporation" is, nor what the Constitution is (a Treaty and Articles of Incorporation for a governmental corporation).
Very interesting. Then who "governs" D.C.? Who's laws apply? Can Trump be held criminally liable for a US Federal Republic crime in D.C.? If D.C. is "foreign" to the US Republic, who has jurisdiction? Trump was a resident of D.C. and located in D.C. on Jan 6. So, again what jurisdiction governs? If I commit a crime in France, then French laws apply. Washington D.C. has its own constitution and law enforcement, etc. Residents didn't even have the right to vote un US elections until (relatively) recently. There is defiantly a separation somehow.
Here's the question: If Trump is in D.C. and a resident of D.C. how can he be held liable for a U.S. Republic crime if he's in a "foreign" (separate sovereign) state? I understand "it's complicated" but wow.
This is NOT rhetorical. I genuinely want to understand this.
Slyvr, can you help sort this out?
According the the Organic Act of 1871, the municipal corporation we now call "Washington D.C." was created with the Board of Directors (BoD) of that corporation being the exact same people as the people who are also the Board of Directors of the United States Government. In other words, the "President of the US Govt." is also the exact same person who is CEO of the D.C. municipality. Similar correspondent positions exist for the Senate, House, and Judicial branch of the US Govt <--> DC municipality. This changed a little bit in the 1970s (I don't remember the exact year off the top of my head) in that they created a Mayor and City Council to act as a governing body for D.C. municipal, but they act at the pleasure, and ultimately at the direction of the original BoD set up by the 1871 act.
The Laws of US Govt. and D.C. Corp both apply to the D.C.
Yes, because they serve as the seat of law for both corporations.
The governors of D.C. have Jurisdiction of everything in D.C. They happen to be the same people as the people who run US Govt though, so it's really moot.
It depends on which governing body is claiming grievance and which law is supposed to have been broken. (Laws are specific to Jurisdictions, though it is possible that both entities have the exact same law, still, it will be explicitly stated on the suit).
Absolutely. Hopefully I have cleared that up? If not, ask more questions.
Both US Govt law and DC law apply in DC. By Treaty (Constitution) he can be extradited to DC from Florida (or wherever he is) to be held accountable in DC IF AND ONLY IF he is in violation of Federal law. If he is in violation of DC law there is no such treaty (as far as i know), and thus he could only be extradited to DC if he agrees to be (or the State performs the extradition itself).
Having said that, that may be part of the treaty as well. I'm not sure on that. That's how it works with countries, but there may be interstate extradition treaties within Federal law with provisions for DC specific law. I haven't looked into that.
https://dccouncil.gov/dc-home-rule/
There is an addendum that I just thought of that I really should have added.
A municipality runs on bonds. Bonds are created, people (or more likely banks) buy the bonds, and then the municipality can build things. Normally, the bond holders have no legal say in how a municipality runs its affairs. If someone holds enough bonds, they may effectively have a say, but legally, they aren't supposed to. (Think Boss Hogg from Dukes of Hazzard). If a municipality is bankrupt however, the bond holders gain managerial control of the municipality until the bankruptcy is completed.
It is entirely possible that has happened with the District of Columbia. I don't know. I have found no evidence that DC has ever declared bankruptcy, nor have I been able to pin down who owns the majority of the bonds. Nevertheless, it is an important piece of information that may be applicable here.
There may also be something similar happening regarding the Fed and the US Govt., though I never found any explicit laws that state that the bond holders of the US Govt gain legal managerial control if the US goes bankrupt, as there is for a municipality, nor have I found good evidence that the US has ever declared bankruptcy (though there is some evidence). It does stand to reason that might apply to the US Govt/Fed relationship however.
Again though, all of that is really moot. That's just the "legal" stuff. The Cabal has total control regardless of the legality of it.
Beyond that, "law" is just a fabrication of reality anyways (AKA an illusion). It doesn't actually exist. It doesn't set any actual limits on actions, rather it sets consequences to enforce illusionary limits (AKA coercion). "Law" only means something until the people decide it doesn't. All Laws, indeed, the very institution of law itself, was created by the Cabal in the first place. It is a completely unnecessary idea, designed purely for fuckery (at least as we currently understand it).
Just posting some context, fren.
Yes, my apologies, my question/post was mostly rhetorical. I'll try to be more clear in the future.
No worries, just double checking! I agree with you - maybe this will expose things for the normies. If it's on Fox News, it must be true!
I wonder if “Jack Smith” is American.
Now that I'm reading that again, isn't that the second time we've seen NEEN in the last few days? The last time, I think, was where the word should have been BEEN.