Derek Johnson | The Walking Talking Grifting Contradiction 🤣

Source Unknown. If anyone knows who created this Derek-exposing masterpiece, please let me know and I'll gladly give credit where credit is most certainly due. 👍🏻Show more

---

For everyone's own discernment 👇🏻 🙏🏻 🥷🏼

AN ATTORNEY’S REBUTTAL from ***http://derekjohnsonuncovered.weebly.com/

The information below addresses Derek’s claims from a legal standpoint. A practicing attorney was kind enough to write this article addressing Derek’s claims. While he gave me permission to use his name, Derek and his followers have attacked people. One of his followers even contacted my employer. For that reason, I will not reveal his name.

Derek Johnson (DJ) has claimed that Donald Trump is still President and Commander in Chief of the U.S. military. The contention is that he can prove this through a series of “Law and Orders.” The following is an examination of a few of the Laws and Orders he most frequently cites as part of the core of his proof:

The Constitution is suspended - FALSE

DJ claims that, because the United States is under military occupation and a “continuity government,” the US Constitution is suspended. But the Constitution cannot be suspended.

Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is known as “the Supremacy Clause.” It reads in pertinent part: “The Constitution, and the laws of the United States . . . shall be the supreme law of the land.” So the Constitution, by its own terms, is the ultimate, supreme law of the land.

The Supreme Court held that the Supremacy Clause guarantees that the terms of the Constitution are “forever inviolable.” The Founders anticipated that the government might try to justify suspending the Constitution—even for well-intentioned purposes—so it used the Supremacy Clause to ensure the Constitution was “irrepealable law.” The Constitution applies “equally in war and in peace,” and there is no way that any of the Constitution’s “provisions can be suspended.”

Allowing the government to suspend the Constitution during difficult times would lead to “anarchy or despotism.” Anyone selling the suspension of the Constitution is advocating for one of those two things.

The Court passed the Military Justice Act and established that military law supersedes civilian law - FALSE

First and foremost, Congress passed the Military Justice Act of 2016 (MJA), not the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). The legislature makes laws under Article I of the Constitution, while SCOTUS interprets those laws pursuant to Article III. SCOTUS did not create this or any other Act.

Second, the MJA does not contain anything about the relationship between military and civilian law. “Congress enacted the MJA” to make changes the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). These changes included which courts martial could hear which kinds of offenses, pretrial and post-trial procedure, how to select the court martial panel, and appellate review of court martial decisions. The UCMJ itself is “a federal law, enacted by Congress, which applies to all active duty members as well as activated National Guard and Reserve members and military academy students. Some civilians in support of the military during wartime are also subject to the UCMJ.” There is nothing in the MJA that expands military law (UCMJ) to the general civilian population.

Third, Congress does not have the power to subject the general civilian population to the UCMJ. SCOTUS—which is the ultimate authority for interpreting the Constitution under Article III—held that the Constitution requires respecting the “traditional boundaries” between military and civilian law. These include the fundamental principles that (1) the military remain subordinate to civilian control and the general laws, and (2) that the military—as part of the executive branch—may not interfere with or usurp the roles of the other two branches, being the legislature and the judiciary.

While the Court left open the possibility that military tribunals might step in should the civilian justice system cease to function, it held that “Only when a foreign invasion or civil war actually closes the courts and renders it impossible for them to administer criminal justice can martial law validly be invoked to suspend their functions.” Thus, there is no “constitutional basis for the jurisdiction of [military courts] when civil courts are in fact functioning or are capable of functioning. Constitutional rights are rooted deeper than the wishes and desires of the military.”

In short, the MJA—enacted by Congress—does not subordinate civilian law to military law as claimed. Even if such language appeared in the MJA, it would be legally ineffective because it would violate the Constitution, which defines and limits the powers of each governmental branch.

The United States is under a secret military occupation by the United States Armed Forces pursuant to the Law of War Manual - FALSE

The Law of War Manual (LWM) is promulgated by the Department of Defense. The LWM defines “military occupation” as situations in which there is a “belligerent occupation.” The law of belligerent occupation does not apply to “non-international armed conflict.” “A State’s military forces controlling its own territory would not be regarded as conducting an occupation.” Moreover, “the law of belligerent occupation would not apply to the use of military forces to control a State’s own territory, such as in cases of domestic emergency, insurrection, or non-international armed conflict.”
​
Nor could occupation be made secret. While there is no per se law requiring a proclamation of military occupation, “the practice of the United States is to make [military occupancy] known by proclamation.”
​
It simply does not and cannot follow that the LWM shows the United States is under a secret military occupation from its own military forces. Under the LWM, occupation occurs when a hostile foreign state invades another. Even if we are to assume the government found some sort of national emergency or insurrection, the LWM explicitly excludes these situations from the law of belligerent occupation. Moreover, it is the policy of the United States not to conduct such occupation without a proclamation of occupancy, so the occupation could not be secret. If we are going by the terms of this document, then there is no secret military occupation of the United States.

We are in a continuity government under the Federal Continuity Directive - FALSE

DJ maintains that Donald Trump is still President of the United States and Commander in Chief of its armed forces because the US is in a “continuity government.” The argument seems to be that a secret order, issued by Trump pursuant to George W. Bush’s 2007 National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD 51), established a “continuity government” where Trump is still President.
​
The first problem with this is that you will never see the term “continuity government” in any official law or order. Rather, NSPD 51 directs the three branches of government and their constituent agencies to ensure they had procedures in place such that they could step up and perform their national essential functions in the face of a national catastrophic emergency. Because DJ is not using a term defined or even contained within NSPD 51, we cannot look at the term’s definition to see if he is using it correctly.
​
We can, however, look to the general purposes, functions, and objectives of NSPD 51 to see whether they would be consistent with what DJ claims is happening. NSPD 51’s primary goal is “Ensuring the continued functioning of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government.”

The Constitution prescribes how a President is elected, how and when he takes office, the powers of the office, and how and when that office expires. If NSPD 51 provided for the suspension the constitutionally mandated process for Presidential succession under a continuity government, this would be counter to NSPD 51’s stated goal: to preserve our constitutional form of government. Obviously, this is not what is happening.

Further, NSPD 51 makes clear that its directives are activated only in the event of “Catastrophic Emergency,” which is defined as “any incident . . . that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, environment, economy, or government functions.” Donald Trump losing an election simply does not qualify as a Catastrophic Emergency under these terms.
​
No matter how much anyone reads from the continuity of government directives, you will never see a provision which allows a president to suspend procedures required under the Constitution. Even if Bush’s NSPD 51 did contain such a provision—which it doesn’t--those provisions would be invalid for the same reason that Congress can’t make a law placing all civilian courts under military jurisdiction: it would be unconstitutional. The real irony is that DJ is saying that Trump used a law to suspend the Constitution, but the law DJ is pointing to was designed to preserve constitutional operations.