Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HHand
why dont you read the law before you just cut some garbage from somebody elses web site? it actually says"(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."
there are a lot of federal corporations like the post office, the couple of mortgage corporations, and more. the law doesn't say that the government is a federal corporation learn to read that kind of stupid misreading of law or taking someone elses word without checking is what got a lot of us in trouble in the first place
|
Actually, HHand,
I can read perfectly well. I
never said that the "government" is a federal corporation. I said that the "United States" was a federal corporation. Therefore, if you replace the words "United States" with "federal corporation" in the above mentioned statute, it would read that "United States" means a "federal corporation", an "agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of that federal corporation", or an "instrumentality" of that "federal corporation." Any Agent, Agency, Department, etc, "of" the "United States" is a
part of that federal corporation, and they are acting
for it.
The "United States" is not a "government". WE THE PEOPLE are the government. The "United States" is a federal corporate
company, plain and simple. It does business for profit, and it uses contracts to do so. You don't have to "do business" with the "United States" against your will any more than you have to do business with IBM, AT&T, or any other corporation. You can refuse to do business with them, and if they don't have you under contract, you have no obligation to perform for them whatsoever.
I don't post from other people's websites. I am a certified paralegal, and have forgotten more about the law than alot of attorneys will ever know. I have spent thousands and thousands of hours in the legal field with legal research and whatnot. I know by trial and error what works and what doesn't. I don't know where you're getting your information from, but it's not factual. Ice hit the nail on the head. There is a VERY REAL difference between the "United States", and the "united States of America". One is a Country, the other is a corporate Company. Another fine example is the Post Office. The law allows for the creation of a "Post Office", but there is no provision for a "Postal Service". The "United States Postal Service" is NOT the "Post Office. It is a corporation doing business for profit through contracts (implied and express). It's just that simple.
I have used this very same argument to place a ($240,000.00) non
lis pendens commercial lien on the property of a State government official in my city. She had her attorney try to remove the lien, and he was unable to touch it because he was not a party to it, and he could not personally state a claim against me upon which relief may be granted. I recently began the process of filing a lien on the property of a judge here, and he said that my claim was "bogus, meritlesss, and totally without legal legs to stand on".
HOWEVER, what did that judge immediately do after making that statement? He RAN to the State's Attorney General's office, and had the Assistant A.G. send me a "scare letter". If my claim was meritless as the judge asserted, then why didn't he just ball it up and throw it away? Why did he go get an attorney, and why did he go the the highest attorney in the State? He did so because he was AFRAID for his PERSONAL PROPERTY. I sent the Asst. A.G.'s letter back to him as "accepted for value, and returned for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted". I also included a cover letter to him stating that he did not have a contract to do business with me, and that he could not state a claim against me upon which relief could be granted. I simply stated that if he ever tried to interfere with my business affairs again that I would file a lien on
his property for damages as a result of his fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, etc. I've not heard a peep from him since.
Gatorguy3 wanted to know about the "Department of Revenue". You don't have to take
my word for it. You can perform the experiment yourself. Physically ask the "person" known as "Department of Revenue" a question and see if he physically answers you. You won't get an answer, and the reason you won't get an answer is because the "Department of Revenue"
can't answer you because he is not a real "person". He is a "fictitious" entity created by the State, and is doing business for profit through contracts. His agents have to speak for him because a fiction can't speak himself. It's like asking Bugs Bunny a question, and actually expecting a non existent rabbit to answer you. It is a fictitious creation, and it
cannot answer you.
If you look at your paperwork in Court, you're either being charged by the "State of XXXXXXXXX", or the "United States", or another person in the Court
in and for the "State of XXXXXXXXX" or the "United States". Here's an example. If "John Doe" charges you in a State District Court in the "State of Florida", the matter is between you and John Doe
only . What does the fictitious entity known as the "State of Florida" have to do with it? The "State of Florida" is not a party to any contract with you, and it cannot state a claim against you upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, its agent Courts are powerless against you untill you knowingly, willingly, and intentionally enter into a contractual agreement with the "State of Florida" to let its Court adjudicate the matter for you.
Here's the simplest way to look at it. If Ice agrees to sell me his 500 horsepower 2005 LS-7 Corvette for $40,000.00, is HHand entitled to any of the $40,000.00? No? Why not? BECAUSE HE WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE CONTRACT. The agreement was between Ice and myself
only , and HHand had nothing to do with it, and no right to interfere. However, if HHand takes $20,000.00 of the money, and Ice doesn't do anything about it because he is afraid of HHand, then HHand gets a free $20,000.00 that he was not entitled to, but, by Ice's failure to act, HHand is deemed to have taken the money by permission because Ice did not assert his rights. Are you beginning to see how the "Courts" work now?
Gatorguy3 also wanted to know if there was any "case law". There most certainly is. Peruse the case of
Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64. In said case, a man was struck by an object sticking off of a train. The man sued the company that owned the train, but the Supreme Court held that, because Tompkins did not have a contract to do business with Erie Railroad Company, that Erie Railroad Company was not liable to Tompkins. The Supreme Court effectively held in that case that the Courts in America would, from that point forth, no longer rule according to Public Law (common law), but according to Public Policy (contract/admiralty law). This (Public Policy) is where the UCC comes from. The Supreme Court in
Erie effectively held that where there is no contract, there is no case/obligation to perform. The UCC is in harmony with that principle and upholds it 100%.
This is why you hear some judges say "If you mention the Constitution again, I'll hold you in contempt!" How can the judge say that if he has an Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution as the supreme Law of the Land as required by the Constitution at Article 6 Clauses 2 and 3? It is because you CONTRACTED with the judge to enter into his Admiralty jurisdiction, and by doing so you agreed to GIVE UP your Constitutional common law rights. Article I Section 10 of the Constitution says that no State shall make or pass any law impairing the obligations of contract. Once you've entered into a contract with the judge/State, NO ONE may interfere with that contract. However, if you haven't made any such agreement, then the judge must have a claim against you upon which relief may be granted before he has the required jurisdiction over you to have the authority to hold you in "contempt" and put you in jail.
It's all smoke and mirrors. It's all IN COMMERCE.
