Is the United States still under Lincoln's martial law?

Some believe Abraham Lincoln's martial law from the American Civil War is still in effect.

Hostilities technically ended about a month after Lincoln's assassination, with a proclamation made by new President Johnson on May 10, 1865.

armed resistance to the authority of this Government in the said insurrectionary States may be regarded as virtually at an end

On April 2, 1866, another proclamation declared the insurrection at an end in all States but Texas.

there now exists no organized armed resistance of misguided citizens or others to the authority of the United States in the States of Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Florida, and the laws can be sustained and enforced therein by the proper civil authority

On Aug 20, 1866, a third proclamation confirmed that civil government was officially resumed in all states that had seceded from the Union.

I do further proclaim that the said insurrection is at an end and that peace, order, tranquillity, and civil authority now exist in and throughout the whole of the United States of America.

Ergo, Lincoln's martial law can confidently be said to be no longer in effect.

Sources: Bartleby, The American Presidency Project

  • 22


  • Except for a Presidential proclamation is only effective if Congress agrees and Andrew Johnsons congress was the first in a long line of corrupt bodies that sold us all out to the world bankers and globalists. Speaking of Presidential orders, Obama declared war on the people of the US in 2012 so though I could say 'close but no cigar, you're not even close enough for that, I am done with you. Message left in honor of Trent Goodbaudy, we're everywhere and you cannot ban us all for speaking the truth!!

    • Hi pgbiener, I have no intention of banning people for speaking their mind or challenging my statements. Please note that all I claimed (or rather, deduced) was that Lincoln's martial law had ended, so Obama has nothing to do with it. Also, as far as I know, the government accepts Johnson's executive proclamations declaring the resumption of civil government in all States and what Congress did back then. I trust you are aware that judging such things as valid or invalid is not for us as individuals but the Supreme Court in accordance with Article III of the Constitution. If you have any evidence that the Supreme Court struck down the proclamations or Congress' approval thereof please post it. Thanks for your comments!

        don't need to strike down a proclamation as it isn't law only a statement of intent.
        Provide proof that the declaration was made into law, as anything else is without the full force of law.
        A promulgation; the official announcement of a new law or ordinance whereby the law or ordinance is put into effect

        • You don't seem to be the first with such concerns. Here's an interesting article:

          • There is no comfort reading of a rogue president considered as infallible as a papal bull by selected historians or some other. False flags has loomed large over USA causing what is perceived a bastion of freedom to have had great chinks in its foundation. They are then exploited for financial profit even from the earliest times. Fault ridden rifles sold to the Union by Morgan (Rothschild agent) would have meant defeat if not for the misplaced trust of Robert E Lee at the gates of the capital. If he forged on the entire history of the US would be considerably more interesting. Perhaps no congressional hearing with Smedley Butler or underhanded manipulations creating a Federal Reserve. No altruism survived that McCormack-Dickstein Committee of 1933

          • Well, I don't see a cure for your concerns, considering how long ago it was and how the current generation has acquiesced to the events. Onward, forward, no?

          • I think that the technocratic pseudo science used to embalm American brains was foundational to the situation/distress pervading humanity. Pavlov, Skinner, Kinsey and Milgram provided touchstones to the rate of progress ingrained. John Taylor Gatto speaks at length to our debilitation. Human beings have predators.
            They have been so trusting and foolish in doing so.

          • Kill COMMON CORE!

          • "Well, I don't see a cure for your concerns, considering how long ago it
            was and how the current generation has acquiesced to the events. Onward,
            forward, no?"

            As a statist addicted to bad government, absolutely not. Deal with it – Major General Smedley Butler – Commandant of the US Marine Corps, spoke the truth. If you think things have somehow gotten better and are more just since he spoke the truth in "War Is A Racket" – prove it!

            If not, just admit you don't care for reality and instead prefer fantasy.

      • "Hi pgbiener, I have no intention of banning people for speaking their mind or challenging my statements."

        No, you just "flag" their comments for "spam" or delete them outright, pseudolaw – at least the comments that prove one or more statements you have made are mere pseudolaw that fly in the face of real law. Lol. How insecure can you be?

    • The congressional act authorizing the suspension made it applicable only "during the present rebellion," which I know has been referred to as a concluded event by both the Executive and the Supreme Court consistently since the 1860s. I'm not aware of any specific references by Congress, but I expect they're scattered around. You'll need to present some evidence to back up that assertion about Obama, though. Especially if that theory centers around chemtrails, Level 8 beings, and the Diamond Authority from the Andromeda galaxy.

  • Why are you such a freedom hating liar? Everything you say is spin. You like to pick and choose the information to further your anti-American cause but refute anything, even founding documents and case law written in plain English, when it doesn't further your agenda. You can't just pay attention to what you want to see and throw the rest away. Law doesn't change because you omit or deny facts..

    Lawyers are legal liars people. If you learn the truth they lose their job. The entire corrupt corporate legal system depends on you believing these lies. We are meant to be free. Don't let them take freedom from us.

    • Care to rebut something or make an argument supported by facts, or are you just here to throw a tantrum?

      • I'm not going to amuse you by reinventing the wheel. The information is already out there. I'm just here to make sure people don't blindly follow your misinformation. I don't want them to believe you or I either one at face value. They need to learn things for themselves. My problem with you is you are trying to stop them from learning the truth.

        • So let them learn for themselves. Do you have any comments about Lincoln's martial law from the civil war (the article)?

          • No, I read your whole site looking for something true and not spun out of context. This article was the last thing I had to read so, when I finished it, I left my comment here.

            Hopefully someday you will quit hating freedom.

          • Hopefully someday you realize the untenability of anarchy. PS The point of this site is not to express an opinion for or against government, but to analyze and understand the application of lawful force in the world today.

          • If that is the case quit lying to further a deceptive political agenda.

            I've said my peace and have only tried to convince everyone to check for themselves. You people on the other hand seem hell bent on proving yourselves right. I think each of our motives are clear. You pursue an agenda and I just care about people and want them to be free.

          • The burden of proof is on the claimant. What did I lie about? I claimed Lincoln's martial law had ended throughout the US. I linked to presidential proclamations supporting the claim. If you can rebut that, please do so. If not, take it elsewhere. See also

          • "I've said my peace"
            I have a real problem accepting anything from a functionally illiterate person. Learn to write before you argue for or against anything. Why is it that so many of these sovereigns hare that same illiteracy. Education?

        • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

          The information that's out there unequivocally refutes you. If you want to argue otherwise, it's going to take some evidence. You're only leaving the research as an exercise for the reader because you know that we can, have, and will continue to tear every one of your bogus pseudolegal claims to ribbons.

          • Oh look, another lawyer. You know, there's a reason you people are often compared to car salesmen. They lie for a living too.

            I'm not here to convince people you are wrong. I am here to promote they find that out for themselves. I know the idea of people discovering your fraud frightens you to panic and you desperately want to argue with me hoping you might be able to exploit something I say and spin it to further your agenda but you will have no such luck today.

          • Is this because I forgot the disclaimer at the bottom that says "question this, think for yourself" like I have on my other articles? The truth doesn't fear being questioned. So ask some questions or make a rebuttal. No-one's stopping you.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            I'm not a lawyer, I just debunk y'all as a hobby. I'm very happy when people look at the text, learn about it, and reach the correct conclusions about what it means. That's why my comments go directly to the text so often. ๐Ÿ™‚

  • Why are you such a freedom hating liar? Don't you realize that freedom can only be protected by claiming that this country is run by a military without any functioning rule of law? All great Americans know that there is no core value in this country more important than not having to wait in line at the DMV or being allowed to drive real fast if you feel like it

    • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

      Robert E. Lee did not die upon the cross so that people had to demonstrate competence before flinging two tons of steel around in public at 70 mph!! Tell these shills like it is, Forrest!!!

    • Rationalizing Insanity

      I love is when someone says an actual FACT and then everyone attacks them as this moron has done. "a freedom hating liar"? Really? Being honest about the actual facts does not make you a freedom hater and it certainly does not make you a liar!

  • "Jurisdiction is a matter of law, statute, and constitution, not a childโ€™s game wherein oneโ€™s power is magnified or diminished by the display of some magic talisman."

    • i see so flags mean nothing. thats not what they teach in the armed forces though. have to disagree with that statement, jurisdiction is a magical quality and a real force of nature. words are spells; hence spellings. And talismans do exist, amplifying power and consciousness- thats why every culture has so many.

      Why does a jewish organization care so much about ideological conformity? Will they "teach" the gentiles to behave? Too much kvetching not enough whitefish- give me nosh! not opinions.

  • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

    Why is the flag now bearing a military gold fringe?

    It isn't.

  • I believe their absolutely is a "Right to Travel" although the supreme Court will not state this simple fact to avoid a massive event of people cancelling their licenses and not paying registration fees. The Constitution protects your inalienable rights to life liberty and pursuit of happiness so long as you do not interfere with the rights and duties of government, public or private property. The people have god give unalienable rights that you cannot be deprived of. Systematically and programmatically people are accepting that there are rules and regulations and that life costs money. But should you peacefully, and knowledgeably stand upon your rights to liberty, you cannot be deprived of any rights. Rights cannot be turned into privileged. Privileges can be granted, and they can be regulated, and taken away. If an officer pulls you over and cannot get you to identify yourself, and has no actual suspicion of crime taking place or a warrant for your arrest, than within 20 minutes they must let you go. These are united states codes. State motor vehicle laws require your participation in the traffic stop. Yes only commercial vehicles limit your rights to travel unencumbered as if you possess a commercial drivers license you are required to identify, a submit to drug test. Etc. If you are truly not acting in conjunction with any commercial licenses, you simply use other rights. The right to remain silent. The right to an attorney before questioning. If you are arrested you can seek redress for injuries. You must communicate with your attorney general, your states secretary of state, to find a solution. Unless you consent to the punishments of civil traffic infractions, you will be able to protect your rights to travel. The Constitution says the state cannot be a victim of a crime. All traffic violations the state is the victim unless you have an actual victim in a traffic accident, or you are a danger to the people on the road,,, it is very very possible to have a right to travel. Facts in this matter are that the state that issues your certificate of title, actually possesses the manufacturers certificate of origin. Which means the state owns the vehicle, you hold title to it, and State requires you to maintain it so long as they hold title. If you retain the manufacturers certificate of origin, you are the sole owner of your property. Have legal documents such as proof of financial responsibility should you cause damage to persons or property, and ask local municipalities how would they prefer you register your property so these facts can be determined before you just spend every single day you travel having it out with different cops. At some point if you do not make a good faith effort to reciprocate than you are going to be found guilty of some crime. But cops cannot just run around arresting everyone they see with a missing number plate. There is no written law that says you MUST have a driver's license or you are a criminal. You just have to defend your unalienable, and inalienable rights. Cops assaulting people and taking them to jail is obstructing the peace. Taking your right to liberty. Right to remain silent. Right to be secure in one's property, right to freedom unless by due process of law can you rightfully be deprived. Now VERY important stipulation… do not try to win in traffic court. You have no rights in traffic court. You must appeal to a higher court, or make the state prove that you are committing crime. Traffic court will cost you all your privileges and some rights like the right to register a car. That is a right but to drive
    It is a privilege. Registration, license and insurance go together. If you have one you need all three. Than you still do not have a "Right" to drive. As an individual we all have a right to the public roads, and can be defended to be true. As you get privileges you almost are required to give up rights. Which makes the license unconstitutional. Judges and lawyers and district attorney's know what they are doing and they will break the law to avoid punishment or exposure that they're making money off every single infraction. Your best bet is to write a letter to the district attorney stating your case. Their is no separate legal entity that they will acknowledge to you even though you have only the rights of a legal person corporation trust. You do not have the rights of the people in civil court. You assume liability, or you don't. Ultimately I believe justice will prevail. The last thing in the world the government will ever allow is to admit that the people have a right to the use of the highways. It is beneficial to society to continue to brainwash people that the can only do what they're told. DMV is a business. Obviously they do not own the public roads. The state work in conjunction with them and auto manufacturers to sneak partial ownership of automobiles, therefore technically the state is responsible for any financial liability revolved around that automobile, a Nd you hold certificate of title which you can affidavit that you own it and use it only for private things. In court no ticket will stick. But be careful. This is a subject that can definitely land you in jail.not by due process of law tho but b
    y contracting into jail.

  • We are still under Martial Law because only an armistice took place, not a peace treaty.

    • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

      How could there be a peace treaty if it was a cornerstone of the Union position that the Confederate States of America were essentially organized American criminals, not a genuine sovereign state? Lincoln would not have accepted a peace treaty that recognized the CSA as a sovereign country. Texas v. White and other federal sources show that the United States consider the end of the Civil War as the end of a major criminal rebellion, not the end of a war between two independent countries with the power to sign treaties.

      • If the Civil war was just a bunch of criminals and not a sovereign state, then why would congress turn D.C. into a corporation in 1878 under Article 1 section 8 clause 17? Prior to the Civil war, the south was acting in its own best interests which infuriated the North….the South was exercising its States' rights as a sovereign nation; The Civil war was about states' rights…

        The constitution set-up the states as a Federation of nation states with sovereign power. You better believe the Government recognized the South as a sovereign power….that's what started the Civil war….Can you say secede? Brexit is the beginning of the succession movement here in the Republic…get ready, Ken, it's coming to a State near you….and you can't stop it.

        • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

          If the Civil war was just a bunch of criminals and not a sovereign state, then why would congress turn D.C. into a corporation in 1878 under Article 1 section 8 clause 17?

          The reorganization of DC had nothing to do with the Civil War. I disagree with a lot of the decisions made during and after the war, but legally, the USA never recognized the CSA as an independent country with the authority to enter into treaties. From the beginning, it was categorized as a "rebellion" that couldn't stand on an equal footing with the USA diplomatically. While some in the Union urged recognition of the CSA, the USA never did recognize the validity of secession or the independence of the Confederacy. All that was required for the "rebellion" to end was the defeat of the Confederate military. The formal surrenders of the various armies were accepted out of convenience and courtesy, not because the USA needed the CSA's formal agreement to end the war.

          • The reorganization of D.C. as a corporation had everything to do with the Civil War just like the EU had everything to do with WW11. Your argument that the South was a rouge territory is false….you are saying the South was a territory. The South was part of the Union which means it had power to be sovereign just like the North had power to be sovereign. The problem was that the South was economically independent from the North and gaining power as a result of not paying taxes. Lincoln wanted a 40% tax on imports to the Southern states under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861. Lincoln said " I have no purpose, directly or in-directly,to interfere with the institution of slavery where it exists in the united states….I believe I have no lawful right to do so." The statement that he felt he ad no lawful right strongly suggests that the South was recognized as independent to do as it wished.

            Today , we are seeing this same thing play out. We as a people in our federation of nation states will not be taxed to death at the hands of a corrupt Corporation. The South felt the same way. The world is starting to see what the South was seeing….a rouge Government headed by the UN and the EU that taxes the people without representation. So, yes, the reorganization of D.C. into a corporation was to control the rest of the Nation States by taking their power away by taxation without representation to the people.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            You've asserted that the reorganizing of DC was related to the Civil War, but you provide no evidence or argument in support of that position. I won't waste time trying to prove a negative.

            The statement that he felt he ad no lawful right strongly suggests that the South was recognized as independent to do as it wished.

            This was prior to the 13th Amendment. At that time, each individual state had the power to allow or prohibit slavery, and the federal government had no power to forbid it. The statement shows recognition of state powers, not recognition of the Confederate States of America as a separate, sovereign government. The United States never did and never have officially recognized the validity of the southern states' secession. I'm no fan of Lincoln or the way he prosecuted his war, but your argument that the a United States are still under martial law doesn't stand up to examination.

          • lol…You never answer anything with regard to the corporation in D.C. and the EU after WW11…..both are one in the same and came into existence after wars to control their respective countries through taxation and policy….can you say anti-Federalists.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            What? The incorporation of the District of Columbia is not the same thing as the formation of the European Union. The 1871 Act dissolved the separate municipalities that existed in the District before, and established a single government for the entire District. The word "incorporation" in this context refers to the establishment of a governmental entity in a geographic area, not some shady for-profit deal. Nothing in that act changed the structure of the federal government or the relationship between the federal government and the states. All it did was roll Georgetown and other towns into a single District government.

          • We the people have nothing to do with that Corporation….show me where we the people consented to be part of the corporation. Show me where we consented??? The EU was set -up to hopefully end war….like WW11. The corporation was set-up to to do the same thing. The problem was that they used fraud and deceit to make the people part of the corporation….we did not consent knowingly to this and we want our sovereignty back. The domino effect of succession will prevail in this country just like in Europe….the Corporation will be destroyed and the federation of nation states will be restored to make their own policies that the people choose….not the corrupt corporation, inc. Good-bye corporate Government and hello States' right s with power to the people to choose our own destiny…..we don't need a corrupt Government taxing us and telling us what to do….the destruction of this corrupt Government is happening right in front of your eyes and you refuse to see it….that's fine. You will have no choice….the end of the UNITED STATES, INC is dying. The federation of nation states will be born. The end of the Federalists has already begun….We do not consent to this foreign enemy in Washington. If you want to read more on this, go read Anna Von Reitz….a U.S Judge who will tell you want time it is.

            ….what are you going to do when Trump takes office? He is for destroying Washington D.C. just like Jackson did. The Civil War was about sovereignty to the States; The South is rising again and the rest of the States will follow their exit with TEXIT.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Yes, most Americans don't have anything to do with the local government of the District of Columbia. The rest of your post is rambling nonsense that relies on completely false premises like confusing the corporate nature of a government with a for-profit business incorporated by a government, or confusing Ms. Reitz with an actual judge. Literally, without exaggeration, her entire list of qualifications consists of "I decided to call myself a judge."

          • Yes. Anna Von Reitz is a judge according to common law. She and a few others operate as common law Judges of the land. She's operating an actual Public law court required by amendment V11 as part of the American Common Law Continental court system that predates all Federal and territorial courts by 200 years. She' s not a judge of the corporation…She's not a member of the bar association because no member of the bar can operate jurisdiction over the land.
            All bar association members owe their allegiance to a foreign Government and are here by treaty….see Bar association treaty of 1947. They are precluded from holding any Public office by the constitution… it and weep.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            …wow. You have no idea what common law is, you have no idea what bar associations are, and I can't find any credible, non-kook source for this supposed "treaty" by a particular voluntary organization. Not that any of this conspiracy diarrhea is relevant to the article — the United States are not under Lincoln's martial law, and your arguments claiming otherwise are laughable.

          • You haven't proved any of what I said as being wrong…You simply say that it is without proof….that's laughable.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            I can't reason you out of delusions you didn't reason yourself into. I also can't explain imaginary numbers to somebody who knows for a fact that there are no such things as negative numbers.

          • Again….your distractions to the facts will not work…'ve proven nothing.

          • Sorry, my friend. You haven't a clue what common law is or what that term means.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Also, you realize that the state governments are and have always been corporate, right? The government of the United Kingdom is corporate, city governments are corporate, and so on. The government of Texas is corporate.

          • As planned because of the commie infestation. States rights and President Trump will make us whole 1933 bankrupt all over no more. We are collateral!

            I am lost at sea and loosing my wallet to float…

          • The CSA was never an "Independent Country" they were Independent States united in a Confederacy. Further it is not the charge that a foreign government recognize a government existing at the will of the people thereof, deriving its just powers from the consent of the people thereof. Do you deny this simple self evident truth expressed in our Declaration of Independence? When I say "OUR" Declaration of Independence I mean the Southern States as the true rightful heirs to that Declaration, as the occupying Yankee Government has denied those self evident truths by their actions against our Southern Confederate States of America.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            That's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that the United States never recognized the CSA or the secession of its member states. That's why there's no treaty.

          • +If the Civil war was just a bunch of criminals and not a sovereign state, then why would congress turn D.C. into a corporation in 1878 under Article 1 section 8 clause 17?

            The reason this happened was because the lawful government was overthrown and everyone was made slaves!!! aka the real meaning of emancipation!!! The passing over of property!!!

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Huh? Are you another one of the "SECRET CONSTITUTION!! CORPORATIONS!! COMMON LAW!! DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!!" nutjobs?

          • To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; (Source)

            It was the federal creation of a new state-like government, and it was created with the voluntary consent of the States, not by conquest.

      • The governments of the Southern Confederate States were in place before each of their ordinances of secession were made, therefore they were recognized as legitimate governments. Further the Confederate States were accepted as foreign States and governments by the occupying governments congresses requirement that they ratify the 13th amendment before being allowed to "Re- enter the "union". Either they were out of the "union" or not, one cannot say they were not recognized as Sovereign Nation/States, united in a Confederacy outside the union, if indeed they were required "Re-admittance". The FACT is that our Southern State governments were forced into a state of exile and replaced by the Yankee occupiers political puppet institutions under "new" State CONstitutions wherein no Confederates or Confederate sympathizers were allowed participation, therefore these are unlawful imposed institutions, indicating the beginnings of the occupation.

        • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

          The United States required re-admission because, in the view of the United States, the seceded states' legitimate governments had been interrupted by a criminal rebellion and had to be reestablished. The United States view the secessions as periods of interrupted government, not of foreign (i.e., Confederate) government.

          Your political opinions aside, the United States consider "the present rebellion" referred to in the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act to be over, and that Act no longer in force. No signed treaty is necessary, nor would Lincoln have signed one.

  • andrew johnsons proclamation 146, july 1864, declared an end to martial law in kentucky. presidential proclamations do not have force of law unless authorized by congress. proclamations are merely an issued statement on public policy. after searching congressional acts, authorizations, nothing found. moreover, johnson faced impeechment during reconstruction from general staff for inconsistancies in opinion of military tribunals assosiated with military powers of martial law. on the surface, as of 1868, martial law was imposed at some form, in some jurisdictions. in addition, in what year were federal courts operating in the southern states? martial law would be needed until buisiness as usual was restored throughout the states.
    i have google searched, 'when did lincolns martial law end', 'what potus', ect., even wikipediahas no results. checked presidential library site, constitution site, nothing.
    I find it hard to believe, a perpetual state of martial law exists in USA currently. after exhaustive searches, I would like to hear a SCOTUS opinion now. SCOTUS, in 1868 stated Linclons 1861 declaration was illegal and unconstitutional, until congress in 1863 authorized martial law. Nothing after these dates officially declaring an authorized end to martial law in whole.
    Is there a congressional authorization that you have found since a presidential proclamation on its own is merely a public statement. You mentioned you are confident, I would like to be confident as well, and argue this to those who believe this martial law declaration still affects us all today.
    Thank you for the platform to find truth online.

    • Which act of Congress made Lincoln's martial law, again?

    • Hi, thanks for your comment. Great observations. Upon further investigation, see e.g. this article and this article, it becomes more clear. Congress can either pre-authorize martial law or the president can make a non-binding declaration that may or may not be ratified by Congress. Martial law displaces civil law, and vice versa. Where the civil courts are operational martial law cannot be lawfully imposed or maintained. So it would seem Lincoln's martial law may have simply "expired naturally" by the resumption of civil authority and not by the authority (or non-authority) of President Johnson's proclamations. I may have to update the article. Well done. ๐Ÿ™‚

      Also note Ken's comment here, which I haven't verified yet:

      "The congressional act authorizing the suspension made it applicable only "during the present rebellion"

      • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

        Here's the Act authorizing the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus:

        • LMFAO No one, I repeat, NO ONE can suspend Habeas Corpus not even a natural disaster would stop the Constitution from being enforced. Or so says the United Nations and many other International Treaties!!!

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            1) The U.S. Constitution specifically stated that the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended.
            2) The United Nations Organization is not sovereign over the United States, and has no lawmaking authority over us.
            3) Can you cite a single treaty that supercedes Article I of the U.S. Constitution?

          • The District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, Guam, American Samoa, Virgin Islands, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of Palau, Palmyra Atoll, Wake Atoll, Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Midway Atoll, Sand Island, Kingman Reef, or Navassa Island is not America… that is U.S.

            So… the U.S. Constitution is a fraudulent knockoff of the original that reconstitutes amendments to liquidate allegiances of proper status into civilly dead corpses in order to make them wards and keep them "minors" to control their bonds and trusts.

  • This report will tell you more than any nonsense on here. Order one for free from the Senate printing office

  • Then who authorized the undeclared present state of Martial Law under which America is currently being ruled? Otherwise, explain how FDR took the country off the Silver and Gold Standard and ordered the turn in of all gold and silver AS LAW without amendment to the Constitution; or how Obama forced the rape of premium/Blue Stockholders in the early days of his admin contrary to all established jurisprudence to the contrary; and, after being reviewed twice by the ATF under Obama's Admin and determining bump stocks do NOT turn semi-autos into machine guns, Trump just ordered ATF to ban bump stocks anyway; etc. etc. Pursuant to Article 6 of The Lieber Code (from which most of the World's Law of War was adopted), civilian governments only operate to the extent allowed by the CIC of a Hostile Occupying Force. And, Article 1 of said code stipulates that the Hostile Occupying Force does NOT even have to declare it's hostile occupation to the inhabitants! The only time most of what's happening in America makes sense is when I assume we're being governed pursuant to Martial Law (which is totally unconstitutional but recognized under International Law (and US Law; re. Title 50 USC) to be the lawful power of Sovereigns!).

  • Gold fringes are just a decoration. Yes they are required for military flags, but a flag having a gold fringe does not automatically make a military flag. In fact, there are sites where you can buy a gold fringed flag for yourself.

  • worriedcriminaldefenseattorney

    Not so fast, pseudolaw. The resolutions of the house and senate you posted links to are separate resolutions and they are different. The president may say they are "substantially similar" and they are, in fact, so. However, it is black letter law that separate resolutions by each house of congress must be exactly identical for them to be determined to be joint resolutions. Furthermore, only joint resolutions (upon signature of the president) may be treated as being a bill and have the force of law. In the case of the Andrew Johnson resolutions, they are not identical; as such, they could not be regarded as a bill and did not become law upon Andrew Jackson's signature.

    • The fact that there was no elected representation for the southern states, but a provisional militry imposed congress. Should void all laws enacted under a proxy congress, should it not?

      • I agree. Since there was that problem, they didn't pay much attention to the fact that the two resolutions were different. It didn't matter, in any event, because it was a con they had to sell to "the people".

  • If Govt under its incorporation are Not for profit then please explain CAFR & Whoms discretion & Sum totals + % earned on the Bonds from Over taxation . Collectively through CAFR investments which is regulated so each incorporated area/district mat only own up to a small percent ie say 5% on average . Collectively Nationwide these Financial instruments own the Controlling interests of Nearly all fortune 500-1000
    Companies and is the Driver of why Prescription drugs prices etc are Not lowered as this would step over the line of Congress passing Must act in the interest of the investor not the True Owners of these funds ie Citizen .
    Then there's CRIS the 401k fund of All Lawyers and Magistrates Judges etc from all prosecutions which is Not a separation
    Of Personal interests ie divestment
    Both profit Govt Only and CAFR reports
    Will Not show the true #'s still as Fraudulent Govt reports of the Sum totals or if & when funds are to be used .
    Why are Counties borrowing money at high interest when there's adequate funds in CAFR Bonds etc?
    By Federal Law these CAFR reports must be publicly avail yearly Hwvr they are wholly incomplete .
    My County Clerk (her fiduciary respons)
    Cannot complete as the State Tax office is Witholding these which is Unlawful Hwvr State claims state rights ..these funds are Secret in Nature Hwvr these are the Taxpayers Property in Law but not in practice . This is so taxes are Nvr lowered and increase say here 2.5% annually as CAFR reports w show they are Not Justified . Taxation not apportioned or via Proper contract w said citizens making them subjects and
    States exercising Hidden Martial Law status . I'm trying to put this is Common language not BAR Vatican Martial Law wording …yes that's what BAR is per the Vatican …they Claim owning the US and England and the Vatican claims the Queen Runs the US Treasury …please clarify these ..Tis a learning process
    Ps :US District Court will or cannot tell you the Fed charge for Not filling out and returning Jury duty questionaire .
    Til US disolved and became US Corp the Law was Parliamentary Common Law .
    Now it's Vatican Democratic Law
    which is Martial Law in practice and essence of this Govt and Lieber Code put in place and Governed by the Geneva Convention . Citing Art 1,2&3 Lieber Code. Also see Dyett v Turner 439 P2d 266 @269 20 Ud2 403 (1968) The Non ratification of 14th amend. By judge A.H. Elletts Utah Supreme Court {emphasis added}
    Note Peace Officers is true name of Law
    Under Common Law prior to USA seclaring bankruptcy
    Law enforcement is Under Martial Law ONLY
    All Laws prior to 1861 are Lawful DE jure statutes all after 1861 are Martial Law statutes . Justice Marshall Harlin Downes v Bidwell 182 US 244 (1901)
    See Emergency Banking Act 3/9/1933
    48 Stat.1 Public Law 89-719
    HJR 192 73rd Congress in session June 5, 1933
    Us in Name only : US Congressional record
    March 17, 1933 Volume # 33
    Us senate report #93-549
    11/19/1973 (73 CIS serial set S963-2 (607 pages)
    Is that enough ?
    Vatican under Martial Law is US Corp ..pretending to honor US Constitution and Rights when they were Set aside or changed and via force of said Fake Govt
    Acting Only under Color of Law of Laws of Wartime .
    Digging for truth & Lawful remedies
    As an American Citizen .
    Redress ?

  • Here's the thing. In the war for southern independence, the union flew military flags that are exact replicas of what can be found in every courtroom throughout the land.

    Go figure

    • I love you, man, but the gold fringe flag is really a distraction issue – seeds planted by disinfo agents to get some in the liberty movement to chase their tails over something that really means nothing, as long as they're not pursuing actual issues of substance.

      If the fringe on the flag signified what people are claiming, every branch the military would be using them. They aren't. The Marine Corps banned the use of fringe on the USA flag in 1921. It's just a decoration, nothing more.

      Also of note, a lot of people screaming that the fringe flag has a special meaning are also Trump worshipers, but they have nothing to say about all the fringe flags on stage with him or the time he hugged one.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *