Myth #22

[Samuel Howell, Jr.]

http://teamlaw.org/Mythology.htm#FreedomToFascism

[Kade]

http://teamlaw.org/Mythology.htm#FreedomToFascism

LOL.

Actually, well written and concise.

I don't like this:


1. If you are not living worthy of the blessings promised by the King of Kings, you need to repent and get your life in order so that we all can stand together worthy of the blessings of the King of Kings

But they go on to say:

If you have either a different religious persuasion or none at all, please forgive us for addressing this message to the bulk of our country’s population and work together with us regardless of religious differences — this battle is for Freedom and the future of our country.

[Fox McCloud]

I'm not sure, exactly, what they mean by "Corp. US"....but I really don't see how they are saying Ed Griffin is incorrect....I've seen him defend himself before, and honestly, I've not seen anyone be able to topple him.

[Samuel Howell, Jr.]

Take the time to familiarize yourself with the rest of their site.

[foofighter20x]

Wow... I can disprove this whole thing in one post by shooting down their second premise: United States Statutes at Large, Volume 16, pg 419 (16 Stat 419) (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=016/llsl016.db&recNum=454).

All this act did was create a municipal town. It created no "shadow" government.

One can easily liken it to this: Imagine a state that had a county with no county government over said county. Further, within this county there are two incorporated cities.

Incorporation of a city means that a superior government has created an inferior government, giving to the latter limited authority to manage that locality's affairs: police, fire, municipal services, etc.

In that same county without a county government, but outside the incorporated cities, the State government is directly responsible for managing those same types of services for the unincorporated areas.

What happened here is that Congress was directly responsible for D.C., except for the City of Washington and the City of Georgetown. It got to the point where Congress felt it was too much of a hassle to manage the entire District, so they revoked the charters of the two cities and incorporated a "county" government.

Shadow government debunked.

NEXT!

[Samuel Howell, Jr.]

Wow... I can disprove this whole thing in one post by shooting down their second premise: United States Statutes at Large, Volume 16, pg 419 (16 Stat 419) (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=016/llsl016.db&recNum=454).

All this act did was create a municipal town. It created no "shadow" government.

One can easily liken it to this: Imagine a state that had a county with no county government over said county. Further, within this county there are two incorporated cities.

Incorporation of a city means that a superior government has created an inferior government, giving to the latter limited authority to manage that locality's affairs: police, fire, municipal services, etc.

In that same county without a county government, but outside the incorporated cities, the State government is directly responsible for managing those same types of services for the unincorporated areas.

What happened here is that Congress was directly responsible for D.C., except for the City of Washington and the City of Georgetown. It got to the point where Congress felt it was too much of a hassle to manage the entire District, so they revoked the charters of the two cities and incorporated a "county" government.

Shadow government debunked.

NEXT!

Okay, show the act that dissolved the charters of the "two cities."

The District of Columbia already had it's organic act back in 1801, so how can it have another organic act...organic meaning first? And, Congress was given, under the act that incorporated the 10 square miles into the District of Columbia, the right to pass any law...they were the government of DC.

I don't see where you have debunked anything. In fact, you have cited a fact that shows that the District of Columbia, having already been incorporated as a municipal corporation (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=002/llsl002.db&recNum=140), was then incorporated as a private corporation.

foofighter20x, why don't you go here: http://teamlaw.org/Forum.htm and post your counter claim on their online forum and see what they come back with? That should be interesting.

[foofighter20x]

Okay, show the act that dissolved the charters of the "two cities."

The District of Columbia already had it's organic act back in 1801, so how can it have another organic act...organic meaning first? And, Congress was given, under the act that incorporated the 10 square miles into the District of Columbia, the right to pass any law...they were the government of DC.

I don't see where you have debunked anything. In fact, you have cited a fact that shows that the District of Columbia, having already been incorporated as a municipal corporation (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=002/llsl002.db&recNum=140), was then incorporated as a private corporation.

foofighter20x, why don't you go here: http://teamlaw.org/Forum.htm and post your counter claim on their online forum and see what they come back with? That should be interesting.

Open the link in in my last post. That should put you on page 419. From there, go to Section 40 of that same Act (which is on page 428). That section is where Congress revokes the corporate charters of both Washington and Georgetown, giving the governmental powers they held to the newly formed District Government.

Also, the story that the "Myth" site gives is inaccurate. I think they either didn't read the acts to which they were refering, or they didn't understand them.

All the 1801 D.C. Act (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=002/llsl002.db&recNum=140) did was to accept as the District of Columbia the lands ceded by Maryland and Virginia, created two counties within said District, established courts within the district, and made provisions for Justices of the Peace (i.e. inferior judicial officers with the power of summary judgment).

What the 1801 D.C. Act did NOT do is establish any municipal government for the entire District. That is, it created no legislative or executive body inferior to the Congress or the President, respectively, which had the power create and execute its own laws.

At the time of the 1801 D.C. Act, Georgetown had been incorporated by Maryland for 50 years, and that charter was held to remain in effect by the 1801 D.C. Act. Alexandria, on the Virginia side, was already incorporated for 52 years at the time.

I'm still searching for the act that authorized the municipal government for the City of Washington.

To answer your question about the "organic" wording of the act:
There was no municipal government for the entire District. Therefore, the Act did create something new.

It's like if a state passes a law forming a county, which draws the county's boundaries and establishs courts and court offices within the county. The state then comes back latter and authorizes a county government where the people elect a local legislature and have local executives to enforce local laws.

Last, I see you linking to the 1801 D.C. Act with your first link. It's obvious to me you have not read the act.

That act DID NOT INCORPORATE any government for the district. It only formalized the boundaries of the entire district, divided the district into two counties, upheld the laws enacted within each county by each state that ceded the land, created courts for the District, and a few other things.

I recommend you go back to that first link you gave and read the legislation. Also, look at the notes in the margin as it summarizes what each Section does.

[Samuel Howell, Jr.]

Open the link in in my last post. That should put you on page 419. From there, go to Section 40 of that same Act (which is on page 428). That section is where Congress revokes the corporate charters of both Washington and Georgetown, giving the governmental powers they held to the newly formed District Government.

Also, the story that the "Myth" site gives is inaccurate. I think they either didn't read the acts to which they were refering, or they didn't understand them.

All the 1801 D.C. Act (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=002/llsl002.db&recNum=140) did was to accept as the District of Columbia the lands ceded by Maryland and Virginia, created two counties within said District, established courts within the district, and made provisions for Justices of the Peace (i.e. inferior judicial officers with the power of summary judgment).

What the 1801 D.C. Act did NOT do is establish any municipal government for the entire District. That is, it created no legislative or executive body inferior to the Congress or the President, respectively, which had the power create and execute its own laws.

At the time of the 1801 D.C. Act, Georgetown had been incorporated by Maryland for 50 years, and that charter was held to remain in effect by the 1801 D.C. Act. Alexandria, on the Virginia side, was already incorporated for 52 years at the time.

I'm still searching for the act that authorized the municipal government for the City of Washington.

To answer your question about the "organic" wording of the act:
There was no municipal government for the entire District. Therefore, the Act did create something new.

It's like if a state passes a law forming a county, which draws the county's boundaries and establishs courts and court offices within the county. The state then comes back latter and authorizes a county government where the people elect a local legislature and have local executives to enforce local laws.

Last, I see you linking to the 1801 D.C. Act with your first link. It's obvious to me you have not read the act.

That act DID NOT INCORPORATE any government for the district. It only formalized the boundaries of the entire district, divided the district into two counties, upheld the laws enacted within each county by each state that ceded the land, created courts for the District, and a few other things.

I recommend you go back to that first link you gave and read the legislation. Also, look at the notes in the margin as it summarizes what each Section does.

I look forward to seeing your post on Team Law's Open Forum. I have read both Acts and the 1801 Act did, in fact and in law, incorporate the municipal government.

[foofighter20x]

I look forward to seeing your post on Team Law's Open Forum. I have read both Acts and the 1801 Act did, in fact and in law, incorporate the municipal government.

B.S.

Where?

Tell me which part, which section of the Act, created a corportation and how exactly it did it.

I sat here and read through everything last night and that act did no such thing.

[Samuel Howell, Jr.]

B.S.

Where?

Tell me which part, which section of the Act, created a corportation and how exactly it did it.

It established a municipal government with it's own circuit court, a judge and two assitant judges (Sec 3), a marshal (Sec 7) and an attorney (Sec 9) all for the district. That is a municipal government.

Corporation as defined by Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary:

CORPORATION, n. A body politic or corporate, formed and authorized by law to act as a single person; a society having the capacity of transacting business as an individual. Corporations are aggregate or sole. Corporations aggregate consist of two or more persons united in a society, which is preserved by a succession of members, either forever, or till the corporation is dissolved by the power that formed it, by the death of all its members, by surrender of its charter or franchises, or by forfeiture. Such corporations are the mayor and aldermen of cities, the head and fellows of a college, the dean and chapter of a cathedral church, the stockholders of a bank or insurance company, &c. A corporation sole consists of one person only and his successors, as a king or a bishop.

The said act meets all the requirements to be a incorporated municipal government.

The 1871 act doesn't repeal the original act that incorporated a municipal government. And, if they wanted to re-organize the structure of the municipal government in the district of Columbia all that was needed was an amendment to the original act.

[foofighter20x]

It established a municipal government with it's own circuit court, a judge and two assitant judges (Sec 3), a marshal (Sec 7) and an attorney (Sec 9) all for the district. That is a municipal government.

Corporation as defined by Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary:

CORPORATION, n. A body politic or corporate, formed and authorized by law to act as a single person; a society having the capacity of transacting business as an individual. Corporations are aggregate or sole. Corporations aggregate consist of two or more persons united in a society, which is preserved by a succession of members, either forever, or till the corporation is dissolved by the power that formed it, by the death of all its members, by surrender of its charter or franchises, or by forfeiture. Such corporations are the mayor and aldermen of cities, the head and fellows of a college, the dean and chapter of a cathedral church, the stockholders of a bank or insurance company, &c. A corporation sole consists of one person only and his successors, as a king or a bishop.

The said act meets all the requirements to be a incorporated municipal government.

The 1871 act doesn't repeal the original act that incorporated a municipal government. And, if they wanted to re-organize the structure of the municipal government in the district of Columbia all that was needed was an amendment to the original act.

1. You didn't answer my question. Where did the 1801 act establish a government? It established a federal circuit court, but established no government. And a federal court is hardly a municipal government.

The 1871 Act says in Section 1:

"...That all parts of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia," etc...

There is NO such language in 1801 Act. And your definition from Webster's that you provided above says the corporation need be established by law. So, where is the statement in the 1801 law that is in anyway similar to what I've highlighted in the 1871 law?

Good luck finding it, since it isn't there.

2. Even if you were right, which you aren't, the first act only established courts, as you admit.

The second act in 1871 established a legislative council and executive offices, so this whole idea is still full of B.S.

Any assertion that they encorporated a new government is B.S. Congress only expanded the local municial body and reconfigured it to have more than courts.

I'm not debating this anymore since you are set in your incorrect opinion, but to anyone else out there with questions, simply read the acts yourself and you'll see I'm right.

[Samuel Howell, Jr.]

1. You didn't answer my question. Where did the 1801 act establish a government? It established a federal circuit court, but established no government. And a federal court is hardly a municipal government.

The 1871 Act says in Section 1:


There is NO such language in 1801 Act. And your definition from Webster's that you provided above says the corporation need be established by law. So, where is the statement in the 1801 law that is in anyway similar to what I've highlighted in the 1871 law?

Good luck finding it, since it isn't there.

2. Even if you were right, which you aren't, the first act only established courts, as you admit.

The second act in 1871 established a legislative council and executive offices, so this whole idea is still full of B.S.

Any assertion that they encorporated a new government is B.S. Congress only expanded the local municial body and reconfigured it to have more than courts.

I'm not debating this anymore since you are set in your incorrect opinion, but to anyone else out there with questions, simply read the acts yourself and you'll see I'm right.

The whole entire act sets up the government for the District. It has it's own circuit court with judges that hear all crimes and offenses committed in the District in law and equity, a marshal that is responsible for the jails and the safe keeping of prisoners, it's own attorney, justices of the peace, registrar of wills and judge of the orphans court for the two counties...not to mention all the subsequent acts that followed further organizing the government of the district.

Whether or not the act uses the the term "government" or "incorporate" within it's text is irrelevant, the document speaks for itself. If the actions set forth in the act meet the definitions, then the words themselves are not necessary.

And, as far as: "There is NO such language in 1801 Act. And your definition from Webster's that you provided above says the corporation need be established by law. So, where is the statement in the 1801 law that is in anyway similar to what I've highlighted in the 1871 law?" The need for the act to state "this corporation has been established by law," or something to that effect is ridiculous. The actions in the act meet the definition of incorporate and the Act itself is the LAW establishing such.

Regardless, I hope this debate has piqued some interest into learning our history and our law. Whether you think this is "B.S." or not.

[slacker921]

wow.. the site they point to is a piece of work.. http://wayofkings.net/ I don't need to bother looking into the facts they give to know they're on a different mission entirely.

[dirknb@hotmail.com]

I find it amusing that this organization claims to debunk these myths and then keeps discrediting themselves by quoting passages from the biggest myth of all throughout their website.

[foofighter20x]

The whole entire act sets up the government for the District. It has it's own circuit court with judges that hear all crimes and offenses committed in the District in law and equity, a marshal that is responsible for the jails and the safe keeping of prisoners, it's own attorney, justices of the peace, registrar of wills and judge of the orphans court for the two counties...not to mention all the subsequent acts that followed further organizing the government of the district.

Whether or not the act uses the the term "government" or "incorporate" within it's text is irrelevant, the document speaks for itself. If the actions set forth in the act meet the definitions, then the words themselves are not necessary.

And, as far as: "There is NO such language in 1801 Act. And your definition from Webster's that you provided above says the corporation need be established by law. So, where is the statement in the 1801 law that is in anyway similar to what I've highlighted in the 1871 law?" The need for the act to state "this corporation has been established by law," or something to that effect is ridiculous. The actions in the act meet the definition of incorporate and the Act itself is the LAW establishing such.

Regardless, I hope this debate has piqued some interest into learning our history and our law. Whether you think this is "B.S." or not.


Annnnnd... you're still wrong. And you've proven you know nothing about law, courts, their associated officers, or their histories.

A federal court is not a municipal government. A municipal govenment entails by its very definition that the people within its incorporated area locally elect a legislative body to make laws and have an executive to execute its laws (neither of which the 1801 act constitutes). The residents of D.C. living outside of Georgetown or Alexandria, and later Washington, didn't elect anyone after the land they lived on was handed over to the federal government until the 1871 incorporated the whole of the district. Until that point, in 1871, the laws in Maryland stayed in effect for Washington County, and the laws for Virginia stayed in effect for Alexandria County (until it was returned to Virginia in 1846). Whenever the laws for the county (outside of the already incorporated towns of Georgetown, Washington, and Alexandria) needed to be changed, guess who made the changes... Congress!! And guess who has to this very day no right to vote for a voting representative to Congress... D.C.!

So far you are 0 for 1.

And your ideal that a federal circuit court was the local, municipal government is laughable. Governments in the U.S. have historically and universally had three branches, not courts (i.e. one branch and one branch only).

Now you are 0 for 2.

The U.S. Marshals Service has long been considered the executive arm of the federal courts as it was established under the Judiciary Act of 1789 and has exhibited that very same nature for its entire history. To think of them as local, municipal law enforcement when their main purpose was to deliver subpoenas, writs, warrants, and summons, and to administer jails and maintain custody of prisoners (i.e. more correctional officers than law enforcement). Any other jobs they did was not by design, but by convenience.

You're 0 for 3.

To this day, even though they are organized under theDepartment of Justice, guess who are considered officers of the court... DAs, ADAs, the Soliciter General, etc... So, by establishing district attorneys, they were provided for court officers for the state. That's hardly an executive branch.

You're 0 for 4.

Justices of the peace, registrar of wills and judge of the orphans court for the two counties... Again, all court officers or court-related offices. And jsut where are these "subsequent acts that followed further organizing the government of the district"? Links please. At the rate you are going, I don't even think I'd believe you are who you say you are without some valid ID.

You're 0 for 5.

The entirety of the act pertains entirely to only one branch of government: the courts.

Your hypothesis that it set up a municipal government falls on it's face under simple scrutiny.

You are free to keep trying, though... :rolleyes:

[Samuel Howell, Jr.]

Annnnnd... you're still wrong. And you've proven you know nothing about law, courts, their associated officers, or their histories.

A federal court is not a municipal government. A municipal govenment entails by its very definition that the people within its incorporated area locally elect a legislative body to make laws and have an executive to execute its laws (neither of which the 1801 act constitutes). The residents of D.C. living outside of Georgetown or Alexandria, and later Washington, didn't elect anyone after the land they lived on was handed over to the federal government until the 1871 incorporated the whole of the district. Until that point, in 1871, the laws in Maryland stayed in effect for Washington County, and the laws for Virginia stayed in effect for Alexandria County (until it was returned to Virginia in 1846). Whenever the laws for the county (outside of the already incorporated towns of Georgetown, Washington, and Alexandria) needed to be changed, guess who made the changes... Congress!! And guess who has to this very day no right to vote for a voting representative to Congress... D.C.!

So far you are 0 for 1.

And your ideal that a federal circuit court was the local, municipal government is laughable. Governments in the U.S. have historically and universally had three branches, not courts (i.e. one branch and one branch only).

Now you are 0 for 2.

The U.S. Marshals Service has long been considered the executive arm of the federal courts as it was established under the Judiciary Act of 1789 and has exhibited that very same nature for its entire history. To think of them as local, municipal law enforcement when their main purpose was to deliver subpoenas, writs, warrants, and summons, and to administer jails and maintain custody of prisoners (i.e. more correctional officers than law enforcement). Any other jobs they did was not by design, but by convenience.

You're 0 for 3.

To this day, even though they are organized under theDepartment of Justice, guess who are considered officers of the court... DAs, ADAs, the Soliciter General, etc... So, by establishing district attorneys, they were provided for court officers for the state. That's hardly an executive branch.

You're 0 for 4.

Justices of the peace, registrar of wills and judge of the orphans court for the two counties... Again, all court officers or court-related offices. And jsut where are these "subsequent acts that followed further organizing the government of the district"? Links please. At the rate you are going, I don't even think I'd believe you are who you say you are without some valid ID.

You're 0 for 5.

The entirety of the act pertains entirely to only one branch of government: the courts.

Your hypothesis that it set up a municipal government falls on it's face under simple scrutiny.

You are free to keep trying, though... :rolleyes:

Again, you should go and present this argument on their forum. I would like to see the outcome. If your point prevails, then that is great. But, debating it here and not giving them a chance to counter your "debunking" of thier case is disingenious.

Also visit: Mythology-CorpUS.htm

[Samuel Howell, Jr.]

I find it amusing that this organization claims to debunk these myths and then keeps discrediting themselves by quoting passages from the biggest myth of all throughout their website.

One can't seperate the "myth" from our own history...

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hr110-888

http://forbes.house.gov/uploadedfiles/HRES888_Final%20Footnoted%20Version.pdf

[Samuel Howell, Jr.]

http://teamlaw.org/HistoryOutline.htm

[shocker315]

Here is Ed Griffin's take on the topic.


http://www.freedom-force.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=US_corporation&refpage=issues

[Give me liberty]

What f__ is this site anyway? a pro bush or a pro neocon think tank?

is this a joke site right?


Everyone has a right to bear arms, just ask the people in europe.

[Samuel Howell, Jr.]

What f__ is this site anyway? a pro bush or a pro neocon think tank?

is this a joke site right?


Everyone has a right to bear arms, just ask the people in europe.


What are you talking about?

[Samuel Howell, Jr.]

Here is Ed Griffin's take on the topic.


http://www.freedom-force.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=US_corporation&refpage=issues

I agree with Griffin's assertion that the Act didn't convert our Republic into a private corporation, as the Act didn't effect the original jurisdiction Republic in anyway. Rather, the corporation was formed as a tool used by the original jurisdiction Republic to shield those holding office from liability stemming from the redistribution of Southern property.

The Republic is alive and well, except most of the seats are vacant. What we have today is a private foreign corporation in control, which is now owned by the IMF. We ingnorantly contract with and fall under it's jurisdiction daily, starting with the Social Security created trust when we use it's Social Security/Tax Identification Number.

It would certainly be great if we could regain control of this corporation with officers like Ron Paul, but the corporation has proven that it doesn't intend to let that happen.

Please read these in order so you can follow the subsequent links.

Here you can learn how, when and why the corporaton was formed and how the United States of America lost control of it: http://teamlaw.org/histor....

This Act and it's subsequent amendments established the government for the district of Columbia in 1801 which Congress was given total authority over in the Constitution of the United States Article 1, Section 8. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi...

Here is a link to the orignal Titles of Nobility Amendment, otherwise known as the 13th Amendment: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi... and when Viriginia gave it the final ratifying vote they published the new Amendment in Acts Passed at a General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Here are some links to the first publication of the new Amendment, granted they are images from a third party source, as I have not been able to make it to an archive or law library to chekc this:

http://www.amendment-13.o...
http://www.amendment-13.o...
http://www.amendment-13.o...
http://www.amendment-13.o...

It was important for the newly formed corporation to not adopt this amendment as it would limit their abilities in redistributing the property of the south after the Civil War.

Then, in 1871 Congress passed the District of Columbia Organic Act http://memory.loc.gov/cgi.... The district already had it's organic (or organizational) Act back in 1801. If they were simply re-organizing, they would have simply amended the original act like they had done previously.

Between 1962 and 1969 all the states had re-organized as private sub-corporations of Corp. U.S. Here in New Jersey the Governor consolidates all the departments, due to the "changing times," to fall under his authority. http://lawlibrary.rutgers... This isn't in compliance with the procedures set forth in our original jurisdiction government state's Constitution. If they were changing the procedures of the original jurisdiction state, rather than forming a private corporation, they would have merely amended the state Constitution in the proper fashion set forth in said Constitution.

Finally, get involved in your states orignal jurisdiction elections. Team Law is keeping track of them here: http://teamlaw.org/Govern...

And, if you have questions visit their forum and ask them: http://teamlaw.org/Forum....

[foofighter20x]

I already debunked this. Take this crap elsewhere.

[Samuel Howell, Jr.]

I already debunked this. Take this crap elsewhere.

You did nothing of the sort.

[foofighter20x]

Bye-bye thread.