PDA

View Full Version : The 16 Trillion Dollar District of Columbia Corporation Debt Is Not National Debt!




michaelwise
09-29-2012, 01:13 PM
The 16 Trillion Dollar District of Columbia Corporation Debt Is Not National Debt!

The debt of the Federal Government Of The United States Of America Corporation as Enacted is theirs and theirs alone! You Don't Have to Pay on It!

The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 aka “An Act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia (41st Congress, 3d Sess., ch. 62, 16 Stat. 419, enacted 1871-02-21) is an Act of Congress, which revoked the individual charters of the City of Washington, the City of Georgetown, and the County of Washington and created a new city government for the entire District of Columbia. The legislation effectively merged what had been separate municipalities within the federal territory into a single entity. It is for this reason that the city, while legally named the District of Columbia, is still commonly known as Washington, D.C. However, this act was abolished in 1874, and while the name did not change, the territorial Governor was replaced with a three-member Board of Commissioners appointed by the President. This system existed until 1974 when the District of Columbia Home Rule Act allowed for District residents to elect their own mayor.

http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2009/01/30/2215/

District of Columbia Home Rule Act - As Amended Through 1997

http://www.nikolasschiller.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/01/22/7354/

The Stock Share Holders of the Washington D.C. Corporation are alone responsible for the 16 trillion dollar debt, made so by the Act of 1871 and subsequent Act revisions.

It also follows, The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 created a Banking Corporation with Stock Share Holders.

The accumulated debt held on the Federal Reserve Corporation's balance sheet belongs to The Stock Share Holders of the Federal Reserve Corporation, and the owners of its Member Banks, period.

http://land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/federal_reserve.shtml

http://www.llsdc.org/FRA-LH/

District of Columbia Act of 1871 Defacto formed 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPkauG6qE8k&feature=relmfu

District of Columbia Act 1871 De Facto formed 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzmUuKd6ucM&feature=relmfu

District of Columbia Act 1871 De Facto formed 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpMMnJWExNU&feature=relmfu

greyseal
09-29-2012, 03:18 PM
Right On !

The Commodity Credit Corporation is the Chartered Corporation for the District of Columbia, Title 15 U.S.C. states that the Corporation owes the national debt.

The Corporation is the Department of Defense, and the Armed Forces, which would exclude the Military.
The Corporation finance, through the Department of Agriculture,(Rural Buisness Investment Corporation) all Venture Capital Companies which includes Bain Capital (Mitt Romney) Larry Silverstein ( Twin Towers), its best to own the building youre planning to demolish to start a war. see TITLE 7 367 (7 U.S.C. 2008b), and section 368 (7 U.S.C. 2008c), regarding assets and programs related to rural development; and

(K) Administrative provisions of subtitle D of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act related to Rural Utilities Service, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, and Rural Housing Service activities.

The RBIC was enacted under the Food for Peace Act, ( Title 22 U.S.C. FOREIGN RELATIONS) it's purpose was to create shell companies to confiscate the natural resources of third world countries.

15 U.S.C.
United States Code, 2010 Edition
Title 15 - COMMERCE AND TRADE
CHAPTER 15 - ECONOMIC RECOVERY
From the U.S. Government Printing Office, http://www.gpo.gov/


CHAPTER 15—ECONOMIC RECOVERY
SUBCHAPTER I—GENERALLY
SUBCHAPTER II—COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION
§713a–4. Obligations of Commodity Credit Corporation; issuance; sale; purchase; redemption; etc.
With the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Commodity Credit Corporation is authorized to issue and have outstanding at any one time, bonds, notes, debentures, and other similar obligations in an aggregate amount not exceeding $30,000,000,000. Such obligations shall be in such forms and denominations, shall have such maturities, shall bear such rates of interest, shall be subject to such terms and conditions, and shall be issued in such manner and sold at such prices as may be prescribed by the Commodity Credit Corporation, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury. Such obligations shall be fully and unconditionally guaranteed both as to interest and principal by the United States, and such guaranty shall be expressed on the face thereof, and such obligations shall be lawful investments and may be accepted as security for all fiduciary, trust, and public funds the investment or deposit of which shall be under the authority or control of the United States or any officer or officers thereof. In the event that the Commodity Credit Corporation shall be unable to pay upon demand, when due, the principal of, or interest on, such obligations, the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay to the holder the amount thereof which is authorized to be appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and thereupon to the extent of the amount so paid the Secretary of the Treasury shall succeed to all the rights of the holders of such obligations. The Secretary of the Treasury, in his discretion, is authorized to purchase any obligations of the Commodity Credit Corporation issued hereunder, and for such purpose the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to use as a public-debt transaction the proceeds from the sale of any securities hereafter issued under chapter 31 of title 31 and the purposes for which securities may be issued under such chapter are extended to include any purchases of the Commodity Credit Corporation's obligations hereunder. The Secretary of the Treasury may at any time sell any of the obligations of the Commodity Credit Corporation acquired by him under this section. All redemptions, purchases, and sales by the Secretary of the Treasury of the obligations of the Commodity Credit Corporation shall be treated as public-debt transactions of the United States. No such obligations shall be issued in excess of the assets of the Commodity Credit Corporation, including the assets to be obtained from the proceeds of such obligations, but a failure to comply with this provision shall not invalidate the obligations or the guaranty of the same: Provided, That this sentence shall not limit the authority of the Corporation to issue obligations for the purpose of carrying out its annual budget programs submitted to and approved by the Congress pursuant to chapter 91 of title 31. The Commodity Credit Corporation shall have power to purchase such obligations in the open market at any time and at any price.

CODIFICATION
The words “of the District of Columbia and” in the phrase of subsec. (c) reading “including the district courts of the District of Columbia and of any Territory or possession” have been deleted as superfluous in view of section 132(a) of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, which states that “There shall be in each judicial district a district court which shall be a court of record known as the United States District Court for the district” and section 88 of Title 28 which states that “The District of Columbia constitutes one judicial district”.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
CHANGE OF NAME
National Military Establishment changed to Department of Defense by act Aug. 10, 1949.

ARMED FORCES

CODIFICATION
The Department of War was designated the Department of the Army and the title of the Secretary of War was changed to Secretary of the Army by section 205(a) of act July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title II, 61 Stat. 501. Section 205(a) of act July 26, 1947, was repealed by section 53 of act Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 641. Section 1 of act Aug. 10, 1956, enacted “Title 10, Armed Forces” which in sections 3011 to 3013 continued the military Department of the Army under the administrative supervision of a Secretary of the Army.
DELEGATION OF FUNCTIONS
Functions of President under subsec. (h) of this section delegated to Secretary of Defense, see section 2 of Ex. Ord. No. 12626, Feb. 25, 1988, 53 F.R. 6114, set out as a note under section 98 of Title 50, War and National Defense.

michaelwise
09-29-2012, 04:03 PM
Right On !

The Commodity Credit Corporation is the Chartered Corporation for the District of Columbia, Title 15 U.S.C. states that the Corporation owes the national debt.

Thanks. We need more discussion and crown sourcing on this matter.

tod evans
09-29-2012, 04:36 PM
Interesting!

GeorgiaAvenger
09-29-2012, 04:46 PM
Anybody smart enough to guess what would happen if D.C. claimed this to be true, and D.C. was stuck with the burden of the debt alone?

michaelwise
09-29-2012, 05:06 PM
Anybody smart enough to guess what would happen if D.C. claimed this to be true, and D.C. was stuck with the burden of the debt alone?

Washington D.C. would become a ghost town because the residents would be stuck with the bill.

puppetmaster
09-29-2012, 05:11 PM
Anybody smart enough to guess what would happen if D.C. claimed this to be true, and D.C. was stuck with the burden of the debt alone?

Bail them out

michaelwise
09-29-2012, 05:33 PM
Bail them out

http://www.innow.org/assets/uploads/no-money-300x300.jpg

michaelwise
09-30-2012, 12:07 AM
Bump.

michaelwise
09-30-2012, 05:48 PM
Need more input.

alucard13mmfmj
09-30-2012, 06:09 PM
Maybe we can sell China Washington DC to have China pay off all of our debt. haha.

Kelly.
10-01-2012, 10:24 AM
i have read about this in the past, but can never seem to run anything to ground on this...

from what i understand the UNITED STATES of AMERICA (the corporation) was registered in delaware, a search of corporations registered in delaware can be done here:
https://delecorp.delaware.gov/tin/GINameSearch.jsp search for: "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"
i show a corporation on file, named UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CORPORATION with a file number of: 2025923
shows it was started in 1984, and that is is a closed corp. (not sure what else you can tell from the info presented)

im not sure what the deal is as it would see odd to allow a corporation to take the same name as a country, even weirder when you read that legally, a corp is a person...

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1516
"person" = n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages unless there is a statute authorizing the award of punitive damages.


http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1308
"natural person" : n. a real human being, as distinguished from a corporation, which is often treated at law as a fictitious person.


unfortunately you are going to have to get a court to agree with this, or at least 25% of the population for this to get any momentum, imo.

all of this sounds similar to what is happening in canada. if you arent familiar, there is a movement in canada to no longer be part of the canada corporation, the premise is similar. identify the corp, withdraw consent from the corp, advise corp of new standing (no longer under corp control), live free.
i can only hope something similar happens here

Acala
10-01-2012, 10:48 AM
No individual is liable for the Federal debt anyway.

Travlyr
10-01-2012, 10:53 AM
No individual is liable for the Federal debt anyway.
But we all pay dearly for it in lost liberty, prosperity, and lives. The war economy is very expensive to individuals.

Acala
10-01-2012, 11:06 AM
But we all pay dearly for it in lost liberty, prosperity, and lives. The war economy is very expensive to individuals.

Of course. But the point is that regardless of all the legal mumbo jumbo presented here about the nature of the Federal government and which entity issued the debt, you as an individual are not now, nor have you ever been, individually liable on the national debt. The government may try to tax you to pay the debt, but holders of US treasury paper do not thereby have any claim on any individual.

Travlyr
10-01-2012, 11:19 AM
Of course. But the point is that regardless of all the legal mumbo jumbo presented here about the nature of the Federal government and which entity issued the debt, you as an individual are not now, nor have you ever been, individually liable on the national debt. The government may try to tax you to pay the debt, but holders of US treasury paper do not thereby have any claim on any individual.

However, they can get a claim on your property and freedom.

michaelwise
10-01-2012, 03:50 PM
I believe the US congress inadvertently did American civilians, the Natural Persons, a favor with the Act of 1871 and the Federal Reserve Act by making the Federal Reserve and the Federal D.C. Government "Corporations", thus relieving us USA civilians of legal liabilities to their debts.

I believe the Supreme Court will agree.

Acala
10-01-2012, 04:04 PM
However, they can get a claim on your property and freedom.

Who is "they"? The holders of US debt cannot get a claim to your property. Holding
US debt gives you no direct claim whatsoever to the real or personal property of any individual.

michaelwise
10-01-2012, 04:55 PM
However, they can get a claim on your property and freedom.

They'd have to get through the 51 hollow point bullets I have strapped to my waist first.

michaelwise
10-01-2012, 11:31 PM
No individual is liable for the Federal debt anyway.

Got that right.

michaelwise
10-02-2012, 12:24 PM
I'm getting ready to drive a shitload of traffic to RPF. I hope the server can handle it.

DamianTV
10-02-2012, 04:18 PM
I know this is kind of unrelated to the thread, but I'll ask it anyway.

Ron Paul calls Inflation a "Hidden Tax on the Value of Money". Most people fail to understand what this means. You have $11 bucks in your pocket. Then Inflation hits. You still have $11 bucks in your pocket. The Quantity stays the same, but the Value has changed. That same $11 bucks can not be used to fill up your gas tank any more, because the Value has changed. It didnt go up, it went down.

I think that Ron Paul may be slightly off in his description of what Inflation is. I think that Inflation could be more accurately be described as a "Hidden Cumulative Tax on the Future Value of the Money". Basically, once Inflation is used to allow the government to purchase something by simply printing the money, it does steal the value, however, where his statement is slightly off is that once the government has made the exchange of their freshly printed money for whatever goods or services they wanted, the Value does not ever go back to what it originally was. Thus, it is Cumulative.

I know it is kind of hard to explain, but let me try it another way. Tax the Quantity. You just got paid 10 Bucks. Im the Govt and need to buy something. So I tax you (yeah, theft). I take $5 bucks from you and you are left with $5 bucks. The $5 bucks collected in taxes is spent, in exchange for goods or services. Your next paycheck is $10 bucks, which, if not taxed, leaves you with $10 bucks from that paycheck. The Value of that $10 bucks didnt change. Now, by comparison, if Inflation (printing the money, tax on Value) is used instead of taking Quantity, the Future Value of your money is taken. Lets go with that $10 paycheck again. Im the Govt and print up money to pay for something. End result of that is you still have a total of $10 bucks in Quantity, but it has the Value of $5 bucks. However, because the value is never restored, the $5 bucks you are left with now has half of that value, but not only that, your next $10 paycheck is only worth $5 bucks. Now Govt wants to buy something again, so it prints up more money. Now your $10 paycheck is only worth $2.50 of its original value. Next time, it will be $1.25, and so on and so forth. Thus, it is cumulative on the Future Value.

I'll try to spin it a different way, using Inflation. Im the Govt, and see a shiny hammer I wanna buy. I print up the money, which decreases the value. I trade the money I printed for the hammer, and the exchange has concluded. The cost to you is that you will NEVER again be able to purchase as much with the quantity of money that you have as you could prior to the Govt printing the money, even though you work just as hard and produce just as many goods or services as you did before. Thus, it is a Hidden Cumulative tax on the Future Value. You will FOREVER pay for the purchase of that one single hammer.

I know I could continue on by saying you might get a raise, but two things, one, that raise will not compensate you for the decrease in the value of your money because your employer or customers may not be willing to pay you, and two, it does get off point of the original point of this post and just has too many details to be ironed out. So let me go back to the original question about Inflation being a Hidden Cumulative Tax on the Future Value as a better way of describing it. And sure, it is a minor disagreement with the semantics.

Do you think that instead of calling Inflation a "Hidden Tax on the Value" to call it a "Hidden Cumulative Tax on the Future Value" it is a better way of describing what Inflation is?

cjm
10-02-2012, 07:53 PM
Do you think that instead of calling Inflation a "Hidden Tax on the Value" to call it a "Hidden Cumulative Tax on the Future Value" it is a better way of describing what Inflation is?

I see what you are saying but I don't think your alternate phrasing is any clearer than "hidden tax on the value." Someone would have to think that dollars are not fungible to believe that their current dollars are effected but future dollars are not. The value hit of the inflation tax obviously effects all dollars, even ones that have not yet been acquired. That's my opinion anyway.