US replaced by municipal corporation in 1871

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by Lawyerdude

Van Pelt, please tell us what qualifies you say anything about the constitution? Did you finish high school? You write as though you suffer from mental illness.
You don't even state your name correctly.
Why not stick to facts. Tell us what you know. Tell us about you.
You theories are the rantings of the mentally ill.
You have been convicted of fraud right? Tell us about that.
As for Quatloos, they banned me, so I certainly cannot post there anymore. However, you post there, right?

LD, here is The Terms Of Use

Here are some relevant excerpts:

INTOLERANT CONTENT EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED

Any member engaging in derogatory discussion or commentary directed at a particular culture, class, creed, ethic background, heritage, political ideology or religious belief will be banned permanently from SUIJURIS.NET.

RULES OF ENGAGMENT

. . . Initiating of nuisance posts as “cheap shots” is prohibited. . . .

Ld, your posts are WAY OVER THE TOP, and you need to conduct your self in a reasonable manner no matter how smart you may be.

This post constitutes your First warning

[aksis]

David,

Thank you.

From what I can tell from the photocopies you provided and reading and rereading them 3x, this quote I have seen on a few sites is almost compleate bull****:

"This corporation [District of Columbia] was reorganized June 11th, 1878 (Chapter 180, 20 Stat. 102) and renamed "United States Government" and it trademarked the names "United States", "U.S.", "U.S.A.", "USA", and "America"."

There does seem to be *some* reorginization of the municipal corporation District of Columbia, yet I see no mention of any trademarking or even the use of the names proported to have been trademarked other then the 'United States', and, it *appears* to be used in the same context that it had before the District of Columbia was ever formed into a government and a corporation in 1871.

Prehaps it happend somewhere else, yet I am a little disappointed and till its proved out, I am no longer seeing District of Columbia as the United States.

Yes the United States is a Corporation.

Is It and the corporation District of Columbia one and the same? I don't see that in this in Chapter 180, 20 Stat. 102 as it proports in this quote.

I got that quote from a document I downloaded from the Nevada superior court site before that court was recently reorginized and have seen it in a few other places.

The document i got it from is title "Is the United States the District of Columbia and/or a Federal Corporation?"

This is kind of interesting though, from the same document:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/9/article9.htm#s9-307
§ 9-307. LOCATION OF DEBTOR.
...
(h) [Location of United States.]
The United States is located in the District of Columbia.
...

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by jerrypitts

David... all of your links create a 404 error message.

Jerry

My archiver takes a couple hours, maybe a day to activate the links. Try again.

"This corporation was reorganized June 11th, 1878 (Chapter 180, 20 Stat. 102) and renamed "United States Government" and it trademarked the names "United States", "U.S.", "U.S.A.", "USA", and "America"."

I believe that may have cropped up but I probably just perused over it as true. There is no need for these corporations to be registered by name. You will not find a corporation named "U.S.A." registered with the secretary of state in Colorado, for instance. You will not find a corporation named, "Internal Revenue Service" registered here either; only a lame excuse that the IRS is not required to register from an ignorant clerk.

Read the Act from 1871 again very carefully and consider the standard definition for United States:

Originally Posted by Black's Law Dictionary; Fifth Edition

United States. This term has several meanings. [1)] It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in family of nations, [2)] it may designate territory over which sovereignty of United States extends, or [3)] it may be collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.

[Think that through. Definitions 1) and 2) would be defining the exact same thing if 2) was not talking about the District of Columbia as the United States. And those two definitions; 1) and 2) would mean the same thing as when you are outside the united States of America telling a foreigner in his homeland where you came from.

This term has several meanings.

Compared to before the Civil War:

Originally Posted by Bouvier's Law Dictionary; 1856

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The name of this country. The United States, now thirty-one in number, are Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, and California.

2. The territory of which these states are composed was at one time dependent generally on the crown of Great Britain, though governed by the local legislatures of the country. It is not within the plan of this work to give a history of the colonies...

And especially paying attention to a parts of that definition:

5. The United States of America are a corporation endowed with the capacity to sue and be sued, to convey and receive property. 1 Marsh. Dec. 177, 181. But it is proper to observe that no suit can be brought against the United States without authority of law.

7. Besides the states which are above enumerated, there are various territories, (q.v.) which are a species of dependencies of the United States. New states may be admitted by congress into this union; but no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state, nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned, as well as of congress...

To shed some more light note what became of verbiage around this conundrum of a plural corporation:

Amendment XIII - Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865.

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

and

Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside...

And also take note of the 13th Amendment for the territorial States (Constitution for the United States of America) c. 1819 and from the 1861 Laws of Colorado (Territory) attached.

It would look like a traversal at will between the States in plural and the United States as the singular District of Columbia corporation that prior to 1861 was a body politic and post-1861 is a creation of President Lincoln under the extraordinary occasion of March 27, 1861 when the Southern States walked out of Congress. However we must remember that clause in the incorporation of 1871 I pointed out in the first post of this thread:

It is difficult to decide which particular passage is most revealing but I like two Sections. The end of Section 19 says:

It is absurd to think of the legislative assembly conferring before discussion to decide if we are the plural States united (body politic) or the United States corporation today? Who are we so that we can legislate properly?

And be it futher enacted, That bills may originate in either house, but may be altered, amended, or rejected by the other...

So there are four houses (against Section 19?) in Washington DC? Two houses "either house" to legislate for the District corporation and the two we watch on CNN; the Congress for these united States of America? I don't think so.

So Dear Aksis;

Do not go overboard because some patriot mythology got started somewhere about that particular act of Congress. That sort of rumor running amuck on the Internet can really distort things with a spin. That sort of journalism makes for the people asserting the truth about 19th Century Congress developments easy to dismiss.

However I suppose the Patent and Trademark Office records may reveal that those Trademarks have actually been taken out back then and there was no need to include the verbiage. Maybe I will call them next week...


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. IdKnow;

You asked:

are you gonna share the knowledge of ss-disposal or do we have to pelt you with unrevokable bits?

baha

Albeit I am wondering what that feels like, you can get rid of your SSN too. Simply quit writing it down and/or saying it out loud.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

[cut]

Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. IdKnow;

You asked:

Albeit I am wondering what that feels like, you can get rid of your SSN too. Simply quit writing it down and/or saying it out loud.

well, then I stopped using is ten years ago then!
eggzellent!

[fulltitle]

You will not find a corporation named, "Internal Revenue Service" registered here either; only a lame excuse that the IRS is not required to register...

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Interestingly enough, from what I've gathered, a business enforcing/collecting debts in most States and merely maintaining administrative offices does not have to register in most States.

Perhaps the same principles are being applied.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by fulltitle

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Interestingly enough, from what I've gathered, a business enforcing/collecting debts in most States and merely maintaining administrative offices does not have to register in most States.

Perhaps the same principles are being applied.

A Private Citizen, acting in their Private Birth-Right does NOT have to register with anyone.

that can even be inferred by what the Fictious Names Act says! and thus can be avoided by doing business IN your own name!

The purpose of the act is to prevent fraud done using an alias.

-
rewrite/expansion:
-

What I mean is that in Pennsylvania the Ficticious Names Act requires that everyone who
uses a ficticious name instead of their own name, ie, Big Blue instead of International
Business Machines, would have to register that ficticious name with the state so that
the state appointed agencies can know who are the responsible parties of the company;

The purpose of the act is to require companies doing business with the public to
properly identify who the principals of the company are so the public knows who they are
doing business with.

[David Merrill]

Dear Idknow;


Please try to explain that a little more carefully.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

I would like to emphasize the point I am making in the title of this thread:

http://www.amendment-13.org/leghistory.html

Between February 2, 1811, and February 14, 1811, Virginia's two legislative houses (General Assembly) considered the Titles of Nobility amendment. Senate and House of Delegates' journal entries record that on February 14, 1811, the following took place in Virginia's Senate:

"on the question being put thereupon, the said resolution was disagreed to1 by the House.2".
There is no known record of Virginia's General Assembly further considering the amendment until early 1817, nor can any reference about a reason for such a long delay be found in official Virginia records.

Therefore it looks as though the new municipal government for the District of Columbia was mimicking the states in Sections of the Act of 1871 where the two houses are referred to. However the same people cannot be in both legislative bodies and there is no second Congress or legislative body (general assembly) for the administration of the District of Columbia municipal corporation separate and distinct from the Congress generally known to all Americans. [If there is, skeptics should bring that to my attention here and I will retract my assumptions - a/k/a eat crow.]

Meanwhile I will assert the title:

US replaced by municipal corporation in 1871

Regards,

David Merrill.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Dear Idknow;


Please try to explain that a little more carefully.


Regards,

David Merrill.

ok,... in next post

[aksis]

First off, I have no intention of discrediting the Truth or adding to the confusion, the intention was to point out that the conclusion that had been drawn and alluded to in the quote was not to be found or proven in that particular section of the Statutes at Large. This is the ONLY reason I called bull**** on part of the quote.... it was misleading and needed to be confronted as I am sure I am not the only one that just took it on some faith.

David this is what I am looking at:

It is easily proven facts that the District of Columbia is:

1) The name of the land/territory
2) The name of a government
3) The name of a corporation
4) The land the 50 republics' reps. meet on. (aka Seat of Government)
...

41st CONGRESS, Sess. III, Chap. LXII, Feb. 21st 1871
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representitives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all that part of United States included within the limits of the the territory of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name District of Columbia, by which name it is constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes,...

It is also easy to prove that the United States is:

1) the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in family of nations, [in the sense of the union of the 50 sovereign republic States speaking as one - not as the corporation, how could it be?]

2) the territory over which sovereignty of the United States extends, or [the name the land is loosly given - each republic has a Formal Title]

3) the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.

4) a DEBTOR (a corporation) located in the District of Columbia. [could any thing else be holding the TRADEMARKS?]
...

So with both Titles, it is fact that there is at least 3 different 'things' being named exactly the same:

1) the territory/land
2) the governments
3) the corporations

LAND

In the sense of land/territory, the term United States must be being used loosly as is NOT the lawful Title.

The Formal Titles of the land/territory must be one of the 50 republics' Titles (ie: New York, Georgia, Rhode Island, California, Arizona, etc... NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH: STATE OF____(tm) !!!!)

GOVERNMENT

The 'government' sense of these things are very bizarre. From what I have gathered the government "District of Columbia" obviously can't be a sovereign entity, nor is it a State of the union. It is the 'bastard child' of the representatives of the People of the 50 republic nations.

Also, there can be seen an obvious differance between a 'government' and a 'municipal corporation'. They (a government & a municipal corporation) are not the same thing from what I can tell.* Governments create municipal corporations.

When the elected Officials of the 50 sovereign governments come together and function, and functioning as one, they function as the government United States of America, the non-corporate entity - they do this on the land/territory of the District of Columbia, not in the corporation or government of District of Columbia.

CORPORATION

I am still having a hard time seeing the UNITED STATES(tm) and the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA(tm) as being the same 'thing'.

It, the UNITED STATES(tm) (the DEBTOR) is defined as being in the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA(tm) [or is it in the government District of Columbia - either way, UNITED STATES(tm) is clearly a sub-creation of a sub-creation].

That the STATE OF ____(tm) are franchizes of the UNITED STATES(tm) is something not hard to comprehend, yet for compleatness, I wouldn't mind seeing this proven out a little more as well. I have no doubt that it can and has been done.

The corporations can have NO de jure/de facto territory or jurisdiction because they are not governments - only governments can have jurisdiction.

Corporations can obviously own property and land, but this is not the same thing as jurisdiction.

It appears that though not the same thing, the UNITED STATES(tm) is subject to the government District of Columbia.

Am I clear on this yet? I am still learning as well.

*See Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856) definitions for GOVERNMENT, CORPORATION & MUNICIPAL