Further Proof of Martial Law in the United States
Further proof that martial law remained in effect after the Civil War can be found in the "Congressional Globe" (now called the "Congressional Record"). The following are excerpts from the April 20th through 29th, 1870 "Congressional Globe" concerning H.R. 1328 which established the Department of Justice to CONTINUE TO CARRY OUT MARTIAL LAW nearly five years after the end of the Civil War:
"The following bureaus shall be established in this department [the Department of Justice]:
a Bureau of International Law,
a Bureau of Revenue Law,
a Bureau of Military and Naval Law,
a Bureau of Postal Law, a Bureau of Land Management Law.
"Congressman Lawrence then said in the record:
“This Bill, however, does transfer to the Law Department, or the Department of Justice as it is now called, the cognizance of all subjects of martial law, and the cognizance of all subjects of military and naval law, except that portion of the administration of military justice which relates to military court martial, their proceedings, and the supervision of records.
”If a question of martial law is to be determined by the law officers of government, it will now belong to the Attorney General, or to this Department of Justice. It will not belong to the Judge Advocate General of the Army. He will not be called upon for any opinion relating to martial law or military law except as to that portion of the administration of military law which relates to military justice.
"In other words, the Judge Advocate General, instead of giving legal opinions to the Secretary of War relating to the status of the states of the union, their right to call upon the government for military protection, or military aid, and other grave Constitutional questions, will be limited. The Judge Advocate General will perform duties administrative in their character and almost exclusively so.
"But I will state to the House why, in my judgment, no transfer of the Judge Advocate General or of his duties to the Department of Justice has been proposed in this Bill. If this had been done, the Bill would have encountered the opposition of some of the officers of the Bureau of Military Justice and their friends, and so great is the power of men in office, so difficult is it to abolish an office, that we were compelled in the consideration of this subject to leave officers in this Bureau untouched in their official tenure in order that this Bill might get through Congress.
"But so far as the Solicitor and Naval Judge Advocate General is concerned, he is transferred with all his supervisory power over naval court partials and the records and proceedings of such courts, so that to that extent, this Bill accomplishes the great purpose which it has in view of bringing into one department the whole legal service of the government. It is misfortunate that there should be different constructions of the laws of the United States by different law officers of the United States."
WHAT IS THIS ALL ABOUT: These traitors knew they would have encountered opposition from the military with the provisions of H.R. 1328, so they decided to leave the military officers untouched during their tenure, and transfer them to supervisory positions over court partials. This appeased the military leaders, who didn't have the foggiest idea as to what was really going on.
Had the traitors fleeced the military of all their powers during their tenure in office, the military would have realized and possibly taken some military action. But as nothing was happening at the hen house, they slept through this entire situation which resulted in an overthrow of the Constitution -- an overthrow under which government pretended to operate in 1933, and under which it continues to pretend to operate today.
The traitors were now faced with a very serious problem, namely, what to do with the powers of the Office of the Judge Advocate General when their tenure in office expired. And they solved this dilemma by adding the following amendments, detailed in that same "Congressional Globe":
Congressman Jenks: I move to amend Section 3 by inserting the word "naval" before the words "Judge Advocate General". The amendment was agreed to and later Congressman Finkelburg stated:
I would suggest the propriety of amending the third section of this Bill by inserting after the words "the Naval Solicitor and Naval Judge Advocate General" the words "who shall hereafter be known as Naval Solicitor".
Mr. Jenks: I have no objection to that amendment. This amendment was also agreed to, and the Office of the Judge Advocate General became known as the Naval Solicitor.
Thus, when the existing tenure was over, the new office would have a different set of rules and regulations so that the Bill accomplished the great purpose which it had in view of bringing into one department the whole legal service of the government without the power of the Office of the Judge Advocate General getting in their way. This was a necessary step to bring the President into the position of dictator over America.
But they had one other problem facing them, namely, DIRECT ACCESS to the Treasury for the Department of Justice without interference. They accomplished this by the following three sections of the Bill:
"...The Eighth Section provides that the Attorney General is hereby empowered to make all necessary rules and regulations for the government....
"...The Eleventh Section provides that all monies hereafter drawn out of the Treasury upon requisition of the Attorney General shall be dispersed by such one of the clerks herein provided for the Attorney General as he may designate, and so much of the First Section of the Act, making appropriations, past March 3rd, 1859, as provides that money drawn out of the Treasury upon requisition of the Attorney General shall be dispersed by such dispersing officer as the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby repealed...."
"...The Fifteenth Section provides that the supervisory powers now exercised by the Secretary of the Interior over the accounts of the district attorneys, marshals, clerks, and other officers of the courts of the United States, shall be exercised by the Attorney General....
" It is important here to remember that under the Trading with the Enemy Act, the District Courts of the United States are: "
"...hereby given jurisdiction to make and enter all such rules as to notice and otherwise and all such orders and decrees and to issue such process as may be necessary and proper in the premises to enforce the provisions of this Act."
It is here that we find out that the district attorneys, marshals, clerks and other officers of the courts are under the Department of Justice.
That seems an obvious statement, given the state of the nation today. But the REAL PROBLEM -- given the broad scope of powers granted the District Courts under the Trading with the Enemy Act -- is that the Department of Justice is *NOT* a part of the Judicial Branch of Government!
According to Section 101 of Title 5 of the United States Code, the Department of State, the Department of Treasury, the Department of Defense, the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Energy, the Department of Education, and the Department of the Veteran Affairs are *ALL* under the Executive Branch of Government. All of the above departments are under the Executive Branch--which raises quite a few questions about the balance of powers between the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches of government.
How can this be? There is no balance of power under a declared state of emergency. And we've been living under a declared state of emergency ever since the Civil War began, and have been living under a declared state of martial law ever since the Reconstruction Act.
This overthrow of the Constitution occurred long before the War Powers Act, and if we are going back in history to find our roots of legality -- and if we stop our search when we reach the War Powers Act -- we are NOT going to succeed in this venture.
Where is the separation of powers if the Department of Justice is under the Executive branch? Shouldn't it be part of the Judiciary?
The answer, of course, is yes; but it's not. Again, just check Section 101 of Title 5 of the United States Code. There is no Judiciary!
If only Congress has the power to regulate Commerce, under Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution, why are the Department of Commerce and the Department of Transportation under the Executive branch and not under the Legislative branch? And if only the Congress has the power to coin money, according to the Constitution, why is the Department of Treasury under the Executive branch?
The Commerce Department (from Title 5): "...part of the Executive branch of federal government, headed by a Cabinet member, the Secretary of Commerce, which is concerned with promoting domestic and international business and commerce."
To further illustrate the take-over by the Executive branch of government via martial law rule, the following offices, bureaus, divisions, and organizations are under the Department of Justice. And remember, the Department of Justice is under the Executive branch -- NOT under the judicial branch.
The Office of Solicitor General
The Federal Bureau of Investigation
The Drug Enforcement Agency
The Bureau of Prisons Immigration and Naturalization
United States Marshal Service
Office of Justice Program
United States Parole Commission
United States National Central Bureau
The Office of the Pardon Attorney
Executive Office of the United States Attorney
Criminal Division Civil Division Anti-Trust Division
Civil Rights Division Tax Division
Environmental and Natural Resource Division
Community Relations Services
Foreign Claim Settlement Division
Executive Office of United States Trustees
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Justice Management Division Office of Legal Counsel
Office of Policy Development
Office of Legislative Affairs
Office of Public Affairs
Office of Liaison Services
Office of Intelligence and Policy Review
Office of International Affairs
Office of the Inspector General
Office of Professional Responsibility; and Interpol
-- (Note: Interpol is a private corporation, yet it comes under (in this country) the Executive branch of government.)
In my opinion: if the matter of the repeal of the Reconstruction Act and the old H.R. 1328 are not addressed, we will remain in a state of declared martial law. But few people do any research anymore, and even fewer read the results of research done by others.
Yes, we are already, and have been all our lives, living under declared martial law. The source of this law is from 1875.
‰ÛÔCITE‰ÛÔ 2 USC Sec. 118
‰ÛÔEXPCITE‰ÛÔ TITLE 2 CHAPTER 4
‰ÛÔHEAD‰ÛÔ Sec. 118.
Actions against officers for official acts
In any action brought against any person for or on account of anything done by him while an officer of either House of Congress in the discharge of his official duty, in executing any order of such House, the United States attorney for the district within which the action is brought, on being thereto requested by the officer sued, shall enter an appearance in behalf of such officer; and all provisions of the eighth section of the Act of July 28, 1866, entitled 'An Act to protect the revenue, and for other purposes', and also all provisions of the sections of former Acts therein referred to, so far as the same relate to the removal of suits, the withholding of executions, and the paying of judgments against revenue or other officers of the United States, shall become applicable to such action and to all proceedings and matters whatsoever connected therewith, and the defense of such action shall thenceforth be conducted under the supervision and direction of the Attorney General.
(Mar. 3, 1875, ch. 130, Sec. 8, 18 Stat. 401; June 25, 1948, ch. 646, Sec. 1, 62 Stat. 909.)
REFERENCES IN TEXT The provisions of section 8 of act July 28, 1866, ch. 298, 14 Stat. 329, referred to in text, were contained generally in R.S.Sec. 643, which was incorporated in the former Judicial Code, Sec. 33, and was repealed by act June 25, 1948, ch. 646, Sec. 39, 62 Stat. 992. See sections 1442, 1446, and 1447 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure. Other provisions referred to were contained in R.S. Sec. 771, 989, which were also repealed by act June 25, 1948. See sections 509, 547, and 2006, respectively, of Title 28.
CHANGE OF NAME Act June 25, 1948, eff. Sept. 1, 1948, substituted 'United States attorney' for 'district attorney'. See section 541 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment against certain public officers, satisfaction of, see Rule 69, Title 28, Appendix, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.
SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS This section is referred to in section 118a of this title.
Statutes Relating to Commissions, Appointments, etc. Sections in this file relate to required commissions, oaths, etc., for officers and employees of United States government and the government of the District of Columbia.
All sections have been pasted directly from the 1996 CD-ROM edition of the United States Code produced and distributed by the Government Printing Office. Notes in Italics that follow the sections list regulations for each section listed in the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules. It is significant that the Seal of the United States is no longer affixed to commissions of judicial officers appointed by the President with advice and consent of the Senate; commissions are filed with the Department of Justice under the D.O.J. seal, which is an executive seal.
This is suggestive that there are no longer any Article III [constitutional] judges in the United States. - CITE- 4 USC Sec. 41 01/16/96 HERE’S
THER REAL KICKER - THIS IS WHAT ENSLAVES US AS 14th AMENDMENT CITIZENS
The Insurrection Act (enacted in 1807) delegates authority to the President to federalize and deploy the National Guard domestically during an insurrection or civil disturbance (10 U.S.C. Sections 331-335).
Section 331 authorizes the President to use federal military forces to suppress an insurrection at the request of a state government.
Section 332 authorizes the President to use armed forces in such manner as he deems necessary to enforce the laws or suppress a rebellion.
Section 333 authorizes the President to use federal military forces to protect individuals from unlawful actions that obstruct the execution of federal laws or which impede the course of justice under federal laws.
Section 333 was enacted to implement the Fourteenth Amendment and does not require the request or consent of the governor of the affected state.
[NOTE BY EDITOR - Corrupted section being investigated; The current DC UNITED STATES is a product of the Act of 1871 exposed on this site. It had NO LAWFULL RIGHT to claim any prior instruments of the organic government for it has no chain of title to the original fourt organic acts that founded this nation. It is merely operating "as if" it were the national government.
The thing about fraud is it vitiates everything. A reminder about fraud:
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137: “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.”
Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105: “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262: “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”
U.S. v. Bishop, 412 US 346: If you have relied on prior decisions of the supreme Court, you have the perfect defense for willfulness.
Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622: “Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law.”
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 1974: Expounds upon Owen Byers v. U.S., 273 U.S. 28 Unlawful search and seizure. Your rights must be interpreted in favor of the citizen.
Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616: “The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.”
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436: “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.”
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486, 489: “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748: “Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must they be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness.” “If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being a gift of ALMIGHTY GOD, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.” —Samuel Adams, 1772
United States v. Sandford, Fed. Case No.16, 221 (C.Ct.D.C. 1806): “In the early days of our Republic, ‘prosecutor’ was simply anyone who voluntarily went before the grand Jury with a complaint.”
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958): “No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.”
“A bill of attainder is defined to be ‘a legislative Act which inflects punishment without judicial trial’”
“...where the legislative body exercises the office of judge, and assumes judicial magistracy, and pronounces on the guilt of a party without any of the forms or safeguards of a trial, and fixes the punishment.” In re De Giacomo, (1874) 12 Blatchf. (U.S.): 391, 7 Fed. Cas No. 3,747, citing Cummings v. Missouri, (1866) 4 Wall, (U.S.) 323. US v. Will, 449 US 200,216, 101 S Ct, 471, 66 L.Ed2nd 392, 406 (1980)
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821): “When a judge acts where he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.”
Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237, 243: “We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted.”
S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905): “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.”
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876): “The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two governments: one State, and the other National, but there need be no conflict between the two.”
Grosjean v. American Press Co., 56 S.Ct. 444, 446, 297 U.S. 233, 80 L.Ed 660: “Freedom in enjoyment and use of all of one’s powers, faculties and property.”
ARGERSINGER v. HAMLIN, 407 U.S. 25 (1972): “The right of an indigent defendant in a criminal trial to the assistance of counsel, which is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment… is not governed by the classification of the offense or by whether or not a jury trial is required. No accused may be deprived of his liberty as the result of any criminal prosecution, whether felony or misdemeanor, in which he was denied the assistance of counsel.”
U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d. 1021; U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297, 299, 300 (1977): Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. We cannot condone this shocking conduct... If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately.
Morrison v. Coddington, 662 P. 2d. 155, 135 Ariz. 480 (1983): Fraud and deceit may arise from silence where there is a duty to speak the truth, as well as from speaking an untruth. In regard to courts of record: “If the court is not in the exercise of its general jurisdiction, but of some special statutory jurisdiction, it is as to such proceeding an inferior court, and not aided by presumption in favor of jurisdiction.”
1 Smith's Leading Cases, 816: In regard to courts of inferior jurisdiction, “if the record does not show upon its face the facts necessary to give jurisdiction, they will be presumed not to have existed.”
Norman v. Zieber, 3 Or at 202-03: It is interesting to note the repeated references to fraud in the above quotes. Therefore the meaning of fraud should be noted: Fraud. An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right. A false representation of a matter of fact… which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. … It consists of some deceitful practice or willful device, resorted to with intent to deprive another of his right, or in some manner to do him injury… (Emphasis added) –Black’s Law Dictionary Fifth Edition, page 594. Then take into account the case of McNally v. U.S., 483 U.S. 350, 371-372, Quoting U.S. v Holzer, 816 F.2d. 304, 307 Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit… includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the public,… and if he deliberately conceals material information from them he is guilty of fraud.