Apparently the United States is a Corporation

[juliusaugustus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjSoGBQUGAY
Skip over to 4:50 to see what he says.
Title 28 of the US code refers to the US as a corporation
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002
Granted several government agencies are themselves corporations, PPP's, Amtrak, IRS, Federal reserve, TVA, GM, Pension funds and so on. I guess we are all employees, members, or shareholders in the US "corporation". Municipalities are technically Municipal corporations and State governments often refer to themselves as corporations. Government also own large amounts of stock in several corporations while at the same time being the entity that is supposed to regulate them.

[libertyjam]

Which is why they say the US is just one big plantation, with every person in it owned as debt slaves by the US Corporation, incorporated in the Bank of England, City of London.

[phill4paul]

This shareholder is tired of losing money on his stock. I call for a new board of directors.

[Acala]

Silliness. Corporations are creatures of statute. Some cities are corporations because the states in which they reside provide laws that provide for the creation of municipal corporations. Corporations like Monsanto also exist under state laws that provide for the creation of business corporations. Corporations ONLY exist pursuant to the statute of the jurisdiction in which they were incorporated. I can cite the statutes that provide for the creation of any municipal or business corporation. So what jurisdiction, what set of statutes, provided for the creation of the supposed US corporation?

[libertyjam]

According to this site: http://melvindaleonline.com/uscon/Law%20Dept.htm , the owner of the corporation is the IMF.

[heavenlyboy34]

Silliness. Corporations are creatures of statute. Some cities are corporations because the states in which they reside provide laws that provide for the creation of municipal corporations. Corporations like Monsanto also exist under state laws that provide for the creation of business corporations. Corporations ONLY exist pursuant to the statute of the jurisdiction in which they were incorporated. I can cite the statutes that provide for the creation of any municipal or business corporation. So what jurisdiction, what set of statutes, provided for the creation of the supposed US corporation?
The constitution is the corporate charter, the U.S.C. is the corporate code.

[heavenlyboy34]

liberty jam is correct ^^

[Acala]

The constitution is the corporate charter, the U.S.C. is the corporate code.

A corporation exists only as a matter of law within a jurisdiction. What statute set up the corporation? And what is a corporate code?

[Acala]

According to this site: http://melvindaleonline.com/uscon/Law%20Dept.htm , the owner of the corporation is the IMF.

Who issued the shares and when? Are there certificates? Do the shareholders elect a Board? Do they have meetings and elect officers? Who are the officers? What body of law controls its operation?

[itshappening]

isn't DC part of the corporation? it's interesting how they set it up.

Americans are slaves to DC.

[DamianTV]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjSoGBQUGAY
Skip over to 4:50 to see what he says.
Title 28 of the US code refers to the US as a corporation
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002
Granted several government agencies are themselves corporations, PPP's, Amtrak, IRS, Federal reserve, TVA, GM, Pension funds and so on. I guess we are all employees, members, or shareholders in the US "corporation". Municipalities are technically Municipal corporations and State governments often refer to themselves as corporations. Government also own large amounts of stock in several corporations while at the same time being the entity that is supposed to regulate them.

You arent really you, either. You are the Corporate Version of your own self. That is why your name is in all upper case characters on any Govt Issued ID. Capitis Diminuto Maxima. The Lessening of a Person by capitalizing their name. So go figure...

[libertyjam]

Sections 1 and 18 of the act of congress of February 21, 1871, entitled 'An act to provide a government for the District of Columbia,'


http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/dccases/metrorrc.htm
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS

District of Columbia

On May 3rd, 1802 an Act was passed to incorporate the City of Washington. (2 Stat. at L. 195.)

In 1871 an important modification was made in the form of the district government -- a Legislature was established, with all the apparatus of a distinct government. By the Act of February 21st, of that year, entitled "An Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia (16 Stat. at L. 419), it was enacted (sec. 1) that all that territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia by which name it was constituted a "a body corporate for municipal purposes," with power to make contracts, sue and be sued, and "to exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.
…

This Constitution lasted until June 20th, 1874, when an Act was passed entitled "An Act for the Government of the District of Columbia, and for other purposes." (18 Stat. at L. 116) By this Act the government established by the Act of 1871 was abolished.

p 234

By a subsequent Act, approved June 11th, 1878 (20 Stat. at L. 102), it was enacted that the District of Columbia should "remain and continue a municipal corporation," as provided in section two of the Revised Statutes relating to said District, and the appointment of commissioners was provided for, to have and to exercise similar powers given to the commissioners appointed under the Act of 1874. All rights of action and suits for and against the District were expressly preserved in status quo. p. 234

All municipal governments are but agencies of the superior power of the State or government by which they are constituted, and are invested with only such subordinate powers of local legislation and control as the superior Legislature sees fit to confer upon them. p. 234

The people are the recognized source of all authority, state or municipal, and to this authority it must come at last, whether immediately or by circuitous route. Barnes v. District of Columbia, 91 U.S. 540, 545 [23: 440, 441]. p 234

Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for this court, in the case of Hepburn v. Ellzey, 6 U.S. 2 Cranch, 445 [ 2:332 ], where the question was whether a citizen of the District could sue in the circuit courts of the United States as a citizen of a State. The court did not deny that the District of Columbia is a State in the sense of being a distinct political community; but held that the word "State" in the Constitution, where it extends the judicial power to cases between citizens of the several "States," refers to the States of the Union. It is undoubtedly true that the District of Columbia is a separate political community in a certain sense, and in that sense may be called a State; but the sovereign power of this qualified State is not lodged in the corporation of the District of Columbia, but in the government of the United States. Its supreme legislative body is Congress. The subordinate legislative powers of a municipal character which have been or may lodged in the city corporations, or in the District of Columbia, do not make those bodies sovereign.

http://melvindaleonline.com/uscon/Law%20Dept.htm
The States join Corp. USA

Starting around 1962 and continuing through 1968. The corporation went to the States and pointed out to them that their own Constitutions forbid them from participating in foreign currencies and/or loans, bonds, etc., and yet they were dealing in the foreign note system of Federal Reserve Notes.

If the people were aware of this you can imagine them painting a picture similar to that of the Magna Carta signing where the people held a sword to the Kings head and said sign or we’ll get a new king. The king signed, and so did the States.

One by one, they signed their Corporations over as sub-corps. to Corp. USA.

Colorado rewrote Colorado’s Constitution, Revised the Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS), and enacted CRS Title 24 as the "Administrative Organization Act of 1968" restructuring its laws in 1968.

Said Title 24 is the new corporate charter for, "THE STATE OF COLORADO" which is a United States corporation (Corp. USA possession).

By 1968 all of the individual States had done the same thing. The California Republic, became "THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA". The Texas Republic became "THE STATE OF TEXAS". The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, became "THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA". Each and every state changed the name of their state to "THE STATE OF _______", by 1968.

[erowe1]

A corporation exists only as a matter of law within a jurisdiction.

Why do you say this? I can't see any way not to consider the federal government a corporation.

[libertyjam]

Who issued the shares and when? Are there certificates? Do the shareholders elect a Board? Do they have meetings and elect officers? Who are the officers? What body of law controls its operation?

Who controls the IMF? see the referenced links

[ronpaulfollower999]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ME7K6P7hlko

[Acala]

Why do you say this? I can't see any way not to consider the federal government a corporation.

You are correct in the sense that any non-human legal entitiy is a corporation. That would include things like churches, associations, and trusts as well as the various municipal, business, and non-profit corporations, and every government that ever existed. But that isn't what these folks are talking about.

Edit: With this I will exit the thread.

[heavenlyboy34]

Why do you say this? I can't see any way not to consider the federal government a corporation.
+rep

[juliusaugustus]

http://teamlaw.org/Mythology.htm
They do a good job showing how the US became a corporation.
Also look up the film "Corporation Nation" you can download it for free.

[erowe1]

http://teamlaw.org/Mythology.htm
They do a good job showing how the US became a corporation.
Also look up the film "Corporation Nation" you can download it for free.

Does that mean there was ever a time that it wasn't one?

[enjerth]

I kind of figured that would be their next step along these lines, after declaring that corporations are people, too.

That gives added weight to their assumptions of authority.

[libertyjam]

Does that mean there was ever a time that it wasn't one?

Apparently before 1871.

[juliusaugustus]

Apparently before 1871.
To be fair before that we weren't really free Native American wars, Mexican American Wars, Alien and Sedition acts, and the war of northern aggression.

[libertyjam]

To be fair before that we weren't really free Native American wars, Mexican American Wars, Alien and Sedition acts, and the war of northern aggression.

Not sure what that has to do with the legal framework of incorporation and the how and when it was set up for fiduciary purposes. What would be more interesting is did Congress rightfully have the jurisdiction to pass such an act?

[erowe1]

Apparently before 1871.

What then? Did Jefferson make the Louisiana Purchase out of his own pocket?

[libertyjam]

What then? Did Jefferson make the Louisiana Purchase out of his own pocket?

Obviously he made the purchase out revenues from excises on imports and exports, or other revenues.

[erowe1]

Obviously he made the purchase out revenues from excises on imports and exports, or other revenues.

Made the purchase for whom?

[Peace&Freedom]

Thanks to the OP for bringing all this out. The end of the united states (plural) of America as a truly independent and free, common law nation based on popular sovereignty ended formally with the 1871 changes, whereby the country was recaptured by the international banking and other establishment interests. It took this group a few more decades to complete other changes (like the formation of the Federal Reserve, the modern income tax, the end of states legislators electing US Senators, etc) to complete the transition back to structural tyranny.

[libertyjam]

Made the purchase for whom?

The Constitutional Republic of the united States held in trust for the citizens therein.

Apparently something those above cited pages leaves out: DC was incorporated in 1801 by an Organic Act,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_Act
All the territories were brought in (or incorporated) in the same way
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organized_incorporated_territory_of_the_United_Sta tes
I don't think this means the same thing as creating a corporation to 'incorporate' a UCC in those territories, but maybe it does and a legal eagle can inform on that.

[heavenlyboy34]

Thanks to the OP for bringing all this out. The end of the united states (plural) of America as a truly independent and free, common law nation based on popular sovereignty ended formally with the 1871 changes, whereby the country was recaptured by the international banking and other establishment interests. It took this group a few more decades to complete other changes (like the formation of the Federal Reserve, the modern income tax, the end of states legislators electing US Senators, etc) to complete the transition back to structural tyranny.
This^^ It was ended informally in 1787 when the constitution cartelized power in the FedGov-creating a corporation which can interact legally with other corporations (central governments) on behalf of "citizens" ("strawmen" as the earlier video says).

[erowe1]

The Constitutional Republic of the united States held in trust for the citizens therein.

Apparently something those above cited pages leaves out: DC was incorporated in 1801 by an Organic Act,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_Act
All the territories were brought in (or incorporated) in the same way
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organized_incorporated_territory_of_the_United_Sta tes
I don't think this means the same thing as creating a corporation to 'incorporate' a UCC in those territories, but maybe it does and a legal eagle can inform on that.

It seems to me that the very possibility that the Louisiana territory was ever France's to sell in the first place and that the US could buy such a thing, presupposes an understanding of France and the US both as corporations, and not republics except in name only.

[libertyjam]

It seems to me that the very possibility that the Louisiana territory was ever France's to sell in the first place and that the US could buy such a thing, presupposes an understanding of France and the US both as corporations, and not republics except in name only.


Going by the first definition of a corporation, it looks like you could be correct.

a collection of many individuals united into one body, under a special denomination, having perpetual succession under an artificial form, and vested, by policy of the law, with the capacity of acting, in several respects, as an individual, particularly of taking and granting property, of contracting obligations, and of suing and being sued, of enjoying privileges and immunities in common, and of exercising a variety of political rights, more or less extensive, according to the design of its institution, or the powers conferred upon it, either at the time of its creation, or at any subsequent period of its existence.
—A Treatise on the Law of Corporations, Stewart Kyd (1793-1794)

[dancjm]

http://www.newstruth.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ministry-of-justice.png

[juliusaugustus]

The Constitutional Republic of the united States held in trust for the citizens therein.

Apparently something those above cited pages leaves out: DC was incorporated in 1801 by an Organic Act,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_Act
All the territories were brought in (or incorporated) in the same way
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organized_incorporated_territory_of_the_United_Sta tes
I don't think this means the same thing as creating a corporation to 'incorporate' a UCC in those territories, but maybe it does and a legal eagle can inform on that.

The Act of 1871 didn't repeal the act of 1801 it created a new corporation and kept the previous municipality.

[opal]

this is kind of what that whole oppt thing was about.. foreclosing on the corporation of government

[Uriah]

http://www.republicoftheunitedstates.org/
http://www.iowafreestate.us/

[Carson]

I remember reading some on this years ago. Some of it in a thread here I think.

Anyway one of the things someone pointed out was that whenever your using the court system, they use your corporation name. In other words your name in CAPITAL LETTERS.

You may have noticed it before without really thinking just what it meant. Any summons to appear like on your jury duty summons.


P.S. I think some people were trying to separate themselves from their corporate identity. I'm not sure if they were the sovereign people.


Here is one of the old threads I was thinking of;

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?213636-How-the-government-stole-the-rights-of-American-citizens

[jmdrake]

According to this site: http://melvindaleonline.com/uscon/Law%20Dept.htm , the owner of the corporation is the IMF.

Though the Magna Carta was in place the rights of the colonists were continually violated. It became necessary to stop England’s abuse of the colonist’s rights so ultimately the Declaration of Independence was drafted. In response the King of England doubled the sales tax to the colonies from 3% to 6%.

I wish federal taxes were a mere 6% of consumption. :mad:

[Carson]

Though the Magna Carta was in place the rights of the colonists were continually violated. It became necessary to stop England’s abuse of the colonist’s rights so ultimately the Declaration of Independence was drafted. In response the King of England doubled the sales tax to the colonies from 3% to 6%.

I wish federal taxes were a mere 6% of consumption. :mad:


For long time regular workers didn't pay any taxes unless they used something that was imported. Which was rare. Everything was paid for with taxes from tariffs.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/14268-before-the-income-tax