Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Corp. U.S. - the Columbia Organic Act of 1871
Team Law ^ | trustee@teamlaw.org

Posted on 12/29/2002 10:49:44 AM PST by RFP

HISTORICAL FACTS


from Team Law

The following 15 points are based upon factual historical evidence:

1st: In 1863, Lincoln instituted martial law. He ordered that the states (people) either conscribe troops and provide money in support of the North or be recognized as an enemy of the nation. This martial law Act of Congress is still in effect today - what it means is that the President has dictatorial authority to do anything that can be done by the government in accord with the Constitution of the United States of America. This is the foundation of Presidential Executive Orders.

2nd: The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 created a private corporation (hereinafter "Corp. U.S.") owned and operated by the actual government for the purpose of carrying out the business needs of the government under martial law. This was done under the constitutional authority for Congress to pass any law within the ten mile square of Washington, District of Columbia.

3rd: In said Act, Corp. U.S. adopted their own constitution (United States Constitution), which was identical to the national Constitution (Constitution of the United States of America) except that it was missing the national constitution's 13th Amendment. The national constitution's 13th, 14th and 15th amendments are respectively numbered 14th, 15th and 16th amendments in their constitution.

4th: The corporation began to generate debts via bonds etc., which came due in 1912, but they could not pay their debts so the 7 families that bought up the bonds demanded payment and Corp. U.S. could not pay. Said families settled the debt for the payments of all of Corp. U.S.' assets and for all of the assets of the Treasury of the United States of America.

5th: As 1913 began, Corp. U.S. had no funds to carry out the necessary business needs of the government so they went to said families and asked if they could borrow some money. The families said no (Corp. U.S. had already demonstrated that they would not repay their debts in full). The families had foreseen this situation and had the year before finalized the creation of a private corporation of the name "Federal Reserve Bank". Corp. U.S. formed a relationship with the Federal Reserve Bank whereby they could transact their business via note rather than with money. Notice that this relationship was one made between two private corporations and did not involve government; that is where most people error in understanding the Federal Reserve Bank system-again it has no government relation at all. The private contracts that set the whole system up even recognize that if anything therein proposed is found illegal or impossible to perform it is excluded from the agreements and the remaining elements remain in full force and effect.

6th: Almost simultaneously with the last fact (also in 1913), Corp. U.S. passes and adopts (as if ratified) their own 16th amendment. It must be noted that this amendment has nothing to do with our nation, with our people or with our national Constitution, which already had its own 16th amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that it did nothing that was not already done other than to make plain and clear the right of the United States (Corp. U.S.) to tax corporations. We agree, considering that they were created under the authority of Corp. U.S.

7th: Next (also 1913) Congress passed and entered the 17th amendment as ratified, even though the states had no opportunity to ratify the same. This amendment is not only not ratified, it is not constitutional; the Constitution forbids Congress from even discussing the matter of where Senators are elected.

8th: In 1914, the Freshman class and all Senators that successfully ran for re-election in 1913 by popular vote are seated in Corp. U.S. capacity only.

9th: In 1917, Corp. U.S. enters WWI and passes their Emergency War Powers, and Trading with the Enemies Acts.

10th: In 1918, President Wilson is re-elected by the Electoral College but their election is required to be confirmed by the constitutionally set Senate; where in the new Corp. U.S., only Senators were allowed to participate in the Electoral College vote confirmation. The only authority that could possibly have been used for electoral confirmation was corporate only. Therefore, President Wilson was not confirmed into office for his second term as President of the United States of America and was only seated in the Corp. U.S. Presidential capacity. Therefore the original jurisdiction government's seats were vacated because the people didn't seat any original jurisdiction government officers.

11th: In 1933, the Trading with the Enemies Act is adjusted to recognize the people of the United States of America as enemies of Corp. U.S.

12th: In 1944, under the Bretton Woods Agreement, Corp. U.S. is quit claimed to the International Monetary Fund, and becomes a foreign controlled private corporation.

13th: Some time after 1935, you ask Social Security Administration for a relationship with their program. They create an entity with a name (that sounds like your name but is spelled with all capital letters) and a depository account number in the Social Security General Trust Fund (GTF). They give you the Social Security card which identifies you as the single person with authority to control the entity they created (on review: you may notice that the Social Security Administration was the creator of the entity, the GTF is its beneficiary and you were made its Trustee.) More importantly: this capacity does not limit you or your capacity to act in your sovereign capacity in any way.

14th: In 1968, at the national governors' conference in Lexington, Kentucky, the IMF leaders of the event proposed the dilemma the State governors were in for carrying out their business dealings in Federal Reserve Notes (foreign notes), which is forbidden in the national and State constitutions, alleging that if they did not do something to protect themselves the people would discover what had been done with their money and would likely kill them all and start over. They suggested the States form corporations like Corp. U.S. and showed the advantages of the resultant uniform codes that could be created, which would allow better and more powerful control over the people.

15th: By 1971, every State government in the union of States had formed such private corporations (Corp. State), in accord with the IMF admonition, and the people ceased to seat original jurisdiction government officials in their State government seats.

Now, having stated these historical facts, we ask you not to believe us, but rather prove these facts for yourself. We then ask you to contact us with any evidence you find that proves or disproves these facts.

When you find there is no error, then remember these simple facts and let no one dissuade you from the truth.

The Bottom Line: when you speak about these private foreign corporations, remember that is what they are and stop calling them government.

Further, it is very important that we cease to attempt to fix them. It is far more important that we learn how to reseat our original jurisdiction government and spread the word about the truth. By reseating our State and national governments in their original jurisdiction nature, we gain the capacity to hold these private foreign corporations accountable. They owe us a lot of money, in fact they owe us more money than there is available in the world. The fact is that it is impossible for them to pay and that gives us the leverage we need to take back our nation and put things right. The process is a simple one. The difficulty is in getting our people to wake up to the truth. That's why we ask you to prove the truth for yourself and contact us with the evidence you discover.

That means that you must stop acting and communicating like you are anything other than the sovereign that God created you to be. And, stop referring to Corp. U.S. or the STATE OF 'X' as anything other than the private foreign corporations that they are. And, finally, stop listening to the Bigfoot Patriot mythology that is espoused by those that only give these facts lip service.

It is time that we all start to wake up and follow the truth, that is to repent and become a moral and honorable society instead of lauding our Christianity while we stand guilty of:

a) not knowing the truth;
b) not living the truth;
c) believing that God will save us even though we have the tools to know the truth the ability to use the tools but we refuse to live by the truth and use the tools we have to save ourselves and thereby become free.

The biggest problem with the so called Patriot Movement is that its proponents are all excited about uniting against the tyranny of Corp. U.S. even though they are blind to the truth, have no remedy, and bail out of "the system" hell bent for a rebellion that even the scripture says cannot be won. Would that we could instead unite with truth and legally, lawfully and peacefully reseat our original jurisdiction government to take back control our nation.



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Free Republic; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 17thamendment; brettonwoods; brettonwoodsproject; corporations; dictator; executiveorder; federalreserve; imf; lincoln; martiallaw; patriotmovement; senators; seventeenthamendment; socialsecurity; tradingwithenemies; wilson
I think this explaination pretty well ties-up all the loose ends. I know the part about the 17th amendment is correct. Whaddya'all think?
1 posted on 12/29/2002 10:49:45 AM PST by RFP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: abner; AGreatPer; Angelwood; bmwcyle; BrucefromMtVernon; BufordP; Congressman Billybob; ...
PINGS )))))))
2 posted on 12/29/2002 11:11:59 AM PST by RFP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RFP; 4ConservativeJustices; billbears
Makes ya think...
3 posted on 12/29/2002 11:16:42 AM PST by Ff--150
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RFP
"This martial law Act of Congress is still in effect today "

WHAT ACT?

Acts have titles, when someone refuses to name the Act he is IMO a kook trying to fool stupid people who won't look up the language of the Act themselves.

Is he referring to "H. R. 591. An act relating to habeas corpus, and regulating judicial proceedings in certain cases"?
It reads: "...During the existance of this rebellion the president shall be, and is hereby, invested with authority to declare the suspension of the privilege of habeas corpus"

I have no idea what lunatic point he is trying to make about ( I assume) the consciption act "S. 511. An act for enrolling and calling out the national forces, and for other purposes".

Kook city IMO.

4 posted on 12/29/2002 12:25:15 PM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
ex parte Milligan

On September 15, 1863, Lincoln imposed Congressionally authorized martial law. The authorizing act allowed the President to suspend habeas corpus through out the entire United States. Lincoln imposed the suspension on "prisoners of war, spies, or aiders and abettors of the enemy," as well as on other classes of people, such as draft dodgers. The President's proclamation was challenged in ex parte Milligan (71 US 2 [1866]). The Supreme Court ruled that Lincoln's imposition of martial law (by way of suspension of habeas corpus) was unconstitutional.

In arguments before the Court, the counsel for the United States spoke to the question of "what is martial law?" "Martial law," it was argued, "is the will of the commanding officer of an armed force, or of a geographical military department, expressed in time of war within the limits of his military jurisdiction, as necessity demands and prudence dictates, restrained or enlarged by the orders of his military chief, or supreme executive ruler." In other words, martial law is imposed by a local commander on the region he controls, on an as-needed basis. Further, it was argued, "The officer executing martial law is at the same time supreme legislator, supreme judge, and supreme executive. As necessity makes his will the law, he only can define and declare it; and whether or not it is infringed, and of the extent of the infraction, he alone can judge; and his sole order punishes or acquits the alleged offender."

In this case, Lambden Milligan, for whom the case is named, was arrested in Indiana as a Confederate sympathizer. Indiana, like the rest of the United States, was part of a military district set up to help conduct the war. Milligan was tried by military commission and sentenced to die by hanging. After his conviction, Milligan petitioned the Circuit Court for habeas corpus, arguing that his arrest, trial, and conviction were all unconstitutional. What the Supreme Court had to decide, it said, was "Had [the military commission] the legal power and authority to try and punish [Milligan]?"

Resoundingly, the Court said no. The Court stated what is almost painfully obvious: "Martial law ... destroys every guarantee of the Constitution." The Court reminded the reader that such actions were taken by the King of Great Britain, which caused, in part, the Revolution. "Civil liberty and this kind of martial law cannot endure together; the antagonism is irreconcilable; and, in the conflict, one or the other must perish."

Did this mean that martial law could never be implemented? No, the Court said. The President can declare martial law when circumstances warrant it: When the civil authority cannot operate, then martial law is not only constitutional, but would be necessary: "If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war."

more martial law info found here

5 posted on 12/29/2002 10:20:10 PM PST by RFP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

A writ of habeas corpus can be issued by a court upon a government agency (such as a police force or the military). Such a writ compels the agency to produce the individual to the court, and to convince the court that the person is being reasonably held. The suspension of habeas corpus allows an agency to hold a person without a charge. Suspension of habeas corpus is often equated with martial law.

Because of this connection of the two concepts, it is often argued that only Congress can declare martial law, because Congress alone is granted the power to suspend the writ. The President, however, is commander-in-chief of the military, and it has been argued that the President can take it upon himself to declare martial law. In these times, Congress may decide not to act, effectively accepting martial law by failing to stop it; Congress may agree to the declaration, putting the official stamp of approval on the declaration; or it can reject the President's imposition of martial law, which could set up a power struggle between the Congress and the Executive that only the Judiciary would be able to resolve.

6 posted on 12/29/2002 10:24:24 PM PST by RFP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Congress ...can reject the President's imposition of martial law, which could set up a power struggle between the Congress and the Executive that only the Judiciary would be able to resolve.
7 posted on 12/29/2002 10:27:17 PM PST by RFP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RFP
Do you understand that martial law was lifted after the rebellion?

I get the impression that you want to believe this idiot even though you can see from the clear language of the Act that he is lying to you.

Don't trust liars. They mean you no good.

8 posted on 12/30/2002 7:18:49 AM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson