U.S. Federal Corporation

[psholtz]

In Title 28, we read the following:

(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/s...2----000-.html

My question is: does the phrase "United States" here recurse on its own definition? That is to say, could this provision be rewritten as:

(15) "United States" means --
(A) A Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board or other entity of [the Federal corporation cited in (A)]; or
(C) an instrumentality of [the Federal Corporation cited in (A)].

Is that the correct way to read this title?

[rottweiler]

Exactly. "United States" is a federal corporation. It's agencies, departments, commissions, boards, or other entities and instrumentalities are all part of that federal corporation. It is a counterfeit of the original united States which no longer exists.

Specifically, it is privately owned by the Crown.

Originally Posted by psholtz

In Title 28, we read the following:

(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/s...2----000-.html

My question is: does the phrase "United States" here recurse on its own definition? That is to say, could this provision be rewritten as:

(15) "United States" means --
(A) A Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board or other entity of [the Federal corporation cited in (A)]; or
(C) an instrumentality of [the Federal Corporation cited in (A)].

Is that the correct way to read this title?

[Notorial dissent]

No, it means that United States has the meaning it commonly does, the fifty states, and the possessions, and then goes on to include A, B, and C in with the common definition, for the purposes of this title.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

No, it means that United States has the meaning it commonly does, the fifty states, and the possessions, and then goes on to include A, B, and C in with the common definition, for the purposes of this title.

Where does it say that?

[Notorial dissent]

In plain and simple English. Unless a word is specifically given a definition other than the one it commonly has it is assumed to carry that definition and the definition her follows the ones preceding it and is one of expansion, so that United States carries the usual meaning of it as well as the additions specified in the definition.

The preceding definition of state bears this out.

[RevokeTheTrust]

Greetings and blessins to Notorial dissent!

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

In plain and simple English. Unless a word is specifically given a definition other than the one it commonly has it is assumed to carry that definition and the definition her follows the ones preceding it and is one of expansion, so that United States carries the usual meaning of it as well as the additions specified in the definition.

The preceding definition of state bears this out.

If you believe that, I have some estate to sell to you on the surface of the Bermuda Triangle. All that you said is nothin but dillusional hot air from someone's conspiracy theory, and you will most likely have a bunk reserved for you in Club Fed if you try to make use of that in any of your frivolous filings. I suggest you get Lawyer to help you define the purpose of "United States" in that section, and then hire Attorney so you don't make an a$$ out of yourself when your person begins reenacting the crimes it agreed to commit on behalf of yourself in the presense of the Judicial Council. The kind of filth that Patriot Movement you are part of is the reason why the courts can't give any bias to your Argument because it's babbeling out-of-context dribble.

without prejudice,
m. Gregory Thomas(tm).

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

In plain and simple English.

In plain and simple English, isn't the correct way to spell your name "Notarial dissent"?

Unless a word is specifically given a definition other than the one it commonly has it is assumed to carry that definition and the definition her follows the ones preceding it and is one of expansion, so that United States carries the usual meaning of it as well as the additions specified in the definition.

According to the rules of statutory construction with which I'm familiar, it is forbidden to arbitrarily extend definitions or make presumptions about what is included because that would violate due process of law.

You're not trying to violate the First Amendment by getting me to believe in your own personal, unsubstantiated beliefs (i.e., your religion), are you? Or in other words, to use the color of law to force me to participate in your own personal statutory religion? :-)

[Notorial dissent]

Originally Posted by RevokeTheTrust

Greetings and blessins to Notorial dissent!

If you believe that, I have some estate to sell to you on the surface of the Bermuda Triangle. All that you said is nothin but dillusional hot air from someone's conspiracy theory, and you will most likely have a bunk reserved for you in Club Fed if you try to make use of that in any of your frivolous filings. I suggest you get Lawyer to help you define the purpose of "United States" in that section, and then hire Attorney so you don't make an a$$ out of yourself when your person begins reenacting the crimes it agreed to commit on behalf of yourself in the presense of the Judicial Council. The kind of filth that Patriot Movement you are part of is the reason why the courts can't give any bias to your Argument because it's babbeling out-of-context dribble.

without prejudice,
m. Gregory Thomas(tm).

You are free to believer whatever nonsense you choose, but the fact remains, that the explanation I have given is the one accepted by the courts, and has been so stated too many times to repeat again. The rest of your gibber makes even less sense than usual and that is going some. I am no the one who appears to be incapable of reading a simple English sentence and making sense of it, nor am I the one in the position of it mattering, contrary to your inferences.

Originally Posted by psholtz

In plain and simple English, isn't the correct way to spell your name "Notarial dissent"?

According to the rules of statutory construction with which I'm familiar, it is forbidden to arbitrarily extend definitions or make presumptions about what is included because that would violate due process of law.
Obviously not very familiar if this is an example, or you would know better. It would seem you are as confused about that as you are about the rest of this.

You're not trying to violate the First Amendment by getting me to believe in your own personal, unsubstantiated beliefs (i.e., your religion), are you? Or in other words, to use the color of law to force me to participate in your own personal statutory religion? :-)

And equally ignorant as to what the First Amendment is about as well, no surprise there either.

[RevokeTheTrust]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

You are free to believer whatever...nonsense you choose..., but the ...fact remains..., that the...explanation I have given... is the one...accepted by the courts..., and has been so stated... too many times to repeat again... The rest of ...your gibber... makes even less sense than usual and that is going some. I am no the one who appears to be incapable of reading ...a simple English sentence... and ...making sense... of it, nor am I the one in the position of it mattering, contrary to ...your inferences.

There was some gap in your transmittal, and some information did not makes its way through the *static* that was supposed to substantiat your a$$ertions. As well, I notice you continually speak of things that your economy has not evailed to you; process for which you have no standing to use, yet continually simulate its perfection beyond the Land through conscript by ignoring the civil authority endured by actual Notary. Perhaps you should ignore me in this want of care, so as not to dispute your uncontested title that are yet to be verified but colourably and through libel.

without prejudice,
m. Gregory Thomas(tm).

PS: How long have you been feeling blue, ND?

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

And equally ignorant as to what the First Amendment is about as well, no surprise there either.

If you are dealing in unsubstaniated beliefs and presumptions, you are dealing in the realm of religion.

If you are extending written statutes in your own arbitrary way, or making unsubstantiated presumptions about what those statutes contain, you are attempting to interject your own unsubstantiated beliefs into the statute and hence to create what is in effect state-sponsored, statutory religion.

I have no problem with the presumptions you make, just so long as those presumptions can be substantitaed.

Where you educated in law school, ND?