Guest post by Rattling your cages Rider
Is there a non-corporate presidential guy in the field? I propose that like the NASCAR drivers, the Presidential candidates must wear outfits that have buttons and labels of their sponsors.
Who would want to be a co owner, risking their own private property and goods, being part of the national collateral, or even being “president” CEO, of a corporation, any corporation, with a financial portfolio such as this, the U.S. corporations national debt is at $16.2 trillion with unfunded liabilities of $123.3 trillion. Sounds kinda risky to me.. Hmmmm… NO THANKS!
the UNITED STATES the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(all capital letters–a fiction–a corporation) the United States of America the United States (intent or defined to be the corporate US), a ” Corporation” with a legislature was established, with all the apparatus of a distinct government created (Incorporated) by (Presidential) Legislative Act, February 21, 1871 Forty-first Congress, Session III, Chapter 62, page 419
On June 20, 1874, the President with advice of Senate abolished and replaced the 1871 government with a commission consisting of three persons. 18 Stat. at L. 116, chap. 337
A subsequent act approved June 11, 1878 (20 Stat. at L. 102, chap. 180) was enacted stating that the District of Columbia should ‘remain and continue a municipal corporation,’ as provided in 2 of the Revised Statutes relating to said District
(brought forward from the act of 1871)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. CAMDEN IRON WORKS, 181 U.S. 453 (1901)
METROPOLITAN R CO v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 132 U.S. 231 (1889)
“… But by the Act of June 11, 1878 (20 Stat. chap. 180), a permanent form of government for the District was established. It provided …and that the commissioners therein provided for should be deemed and taken as officers of such corporation.”
The District of Columbia v. Henry E. Woodbury, 136 U.S. 472 (1890)
“United States” is the “District of Columbia” incorporated. “The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a State” Volume 20: Corpus Juris Sec. § 1785, Also: NY re: Merriam 36 N.E. 505 1441 S. 0.1973, 14 L. Ed. 287
In UNITED STATES CODE, Title 28, in Section 3002 Definitions, it states the following:
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
So, anyone want to explain to us how, 300+ million contractual “person” sub contractors contracting with a superior corporation, are really the owners of it all. Every other corporate model around the world is the exact opposite. This one’s special. Go to work this morning and fire all those CEO’s. I wanna watch. Since none of you hold title to anything showing ownership of this corporate model, who does?
The States and it’s inhabitants claim this land as theirs, patriots claim they have allodial title to the land. How can this be when they never owned it to begin with?
“But this State had no title to the territory prior to the title of the King of Great Britain and his subjects, nor did it ever claim as lord paramount to them. This State was not the original grantor to them, nor did they ever hold by any kind of tenure under the State, or owe it any allegiance or other duties to which an escheat is annexed. How then can it be said that the lands in this case naturally result back by a kind of reversion to this State, to a source from whence it never issued, and from tenants who never held under it?” MARSHALL v. LOVELESS, 1 N.C. 412 (1801), 2 S.A. 70.
The property of British corporations, in this country, is protected by the sixth article of the Treaty of Peace of 1783, in the same manner as those of natural persons; and their title, thus protected, it confirmed by the ninth article of the Treaty of 1794, so that is could not be forfeited by any intermediate legislative act, or other proceeding for the defect of alienage.” The Society for Propagating the Gospel, &c v. New Haven, 8 Wheat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489. (Footnote-annotated, Definitive Treaty of Peace).
“The capacity of private individuals (British subjects), or of corporations, created by the crown, in this country, or in Great Britain, to hold lands or other property in this country, WAS NOT affected by the revolution. The proper courts in this country will interfere to prevent an abuse of the trusts confided to British corporations holding lands here to charitable uses, and will aid in enforcing the due execution of the trusts; but neither those courts, nor the local legislature where the lands lie, can adjudge a forfeiture of the franchises of the foreign corporation, or of its property. The property of British corporations, in this country, is protected by the 6th article of the Treaty of Peace of 1783 in the same manner as those of natural persona; and their title, thus protected, is confirmed by the 9th article of the Treaty of 1794, so that it could not be forfeited by any intermediate legislative act, or other proceeding, for the defect of alienage. The termination of a treaty, by war, DOES NOT divest rights of property already vested under it. Nor do treaties, in general, become extinguished, ipso facto, by war between the two governments. Those stipulating for a permanent arrangement of territorial, and other national rights, are, at most, suspended during the war, and revive at the peace, unless they are waived by the parties, or new and repugnant stipulations are made.” The Society, &c., v. The Town of New Haven. Et Al. 8 Wheat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489.
“….Let the colonies always keep the idea of their civil rights associated with your government — they will cling and grapple to you, and no force under heaven will be of power to tear them from their allegiance. But let it be once understood that your government may be one thing and their privileges another, that these two things may exist without any mutual relation — the cement is gone, the cohesion is loosened, and everything hastens to decay and dissolution. As long as you have the wisdom to keep the sovereign authority of this country as the sanctuary of liberty, the sacred temple consecrated to our common faith, wherever the chosen race and sons of England worship freedom, they will turn their faces towards you. The more they multiply, the more friends you will have, the more ardently they love liberty, the more perfect will be their obedience. Slavery they can have they may have it from Spain, they may have it from Prussia. But until you become lost to all feeling of your true interest and your natural dignity, freedom they can have from none but you. This commodity of price, of which you have the monopoly. This is the true Act of Navigation, which binds to you the commerce of the colonies, and through them secures to you the wealth of the world. Deny them this participation of freedom, and you break that sole bond which originally made, and must still preserve, the unity of the empire. . . Let us get an American revenue as we have got an American empire. English privileges have made it all that it is; English privileges alone will make it all it can be.” Edmund Burke, speech on conciliation with America, pages 71-72, March 22, 1775.
You’re all fighting over nothing. Get out your allodial titles please.