Are states a corporation?

[aksis]

Originally Posted by fulltitle

Your magic answer aksis appears to be in this: Depends on which "United States" or "Colorado" you are talking about. Just maybe only yourself in your own mind can know that--and there lies the answer. What is Colorado to me may not be Colorado to you. What is Colorado to them might not be Colorado to me. Likewise, for the man in the black robe and the fella in the costume/uniform with the gun --COLORADO iz what it iz to them. For me Colorado is a big chunk o' dirt and mountains somewhere west of a river called "Mississippi" and somewhere east of an ocean called "Pacific"--a logical geographic subset of a landmass, or set of landmasses*, that I call "America" or "the Americas". The Colorado that I stood on isnt a corporation to my knowledge. Are corporations made of dirt n' mountains? Seems we be talking about different "Colorado"*s.

Sounds like you were standing in the Universe, on Earth, and calling a part of it "Colorado".

That the states are, and have always been, public corporations, is not a matter of opinion or prespective, it is a proven fact. The rest of these accertions have yet to be proven.

The section of land that they were created to serve is only public property if it is public property.

The point of the post made was to illustrate that it was common in the past for private concerns to borrow governmental terms so it is conceivable that the same sorts might go as far as create complete business organizations (*ahem* British East India Company) and pose as organic governments.

But with repsect to your question I wasnt out to "prove" anything.

Nor did you... with respects to my question.


Sincerely,

Christopher Theodore: Rhodes


P.S.

Is the state of Nature God's kingdom (a.k.a. Kingdom of Heaven, a.k.a. Universal Kingdom of God, etc..), from your prespective?

How could you or anyone say, as a matter of fact, that "you are/were in Colorado", unless you were an employee of that corporation?

[rottweiler]

You just jumped jurisdictions from body politic to the private corporation because you can't tell the difference between the two.

The de jure government was created to serve the people.

The private corporation serves public property. (By dropping the k from "publick" the word "public" now means "private".)

The foreign private federal union "serves" the interest of it's god, namely the Pope. US citizens are his cargo without a destination. They all have a name, warehouse address, born on date or date of manufacture, and are numbered.

You will always be a doubleminded idiot in the law until you accept the authority of Yahweh.

Originally Posted by aksis

Sounds like you were standing in the Universe, on Earth, and calling a part of it "Colorado".

That the states are, and have always been, public corporations, is not a matter of opinion or prespective, it is a proven fact. The rest of these accertions have yet to be proven.

The section of land that they were created to serve is only public property if it is public property.

Sincerely,

Christopher Theodore: Rhode

[fulltitle]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

Who benefits by substituting the Washington state constitution with something that hardly resembles the one in the National Archives? By what authority?

Perhaps those who aim to subjugate, usurp or undermine through deception (if any such persons or men or beings would do such a thing)?

Originally Posted by rottweiler

Being a anarchist will not get these private corporations out of here.

You are correct. Someone once said "A ship without a flag is subject to seizure". The point: as I've asserted in other threads: when chaos breaks out maybe YOU are the one who is help facilitate order around you.

"...any ship without a flag is a pirate ship and can be inspected by naval officials." --Spanish Defence Minister commenting on the seizure of the So-San, a ship in the Arabian Sea. (circa 2002)

Now imagine some feel good, bleeding heart political movement that suggest all the flags be taken off government buildings around the world and burned. Then days later, military invasion. They would be surprised wouldn't they?

[fulltitle]

Originally Posted by aksis

That the states are, and have always been, public corporations, is not a matter of opinion or prespective, it is a proven fact. The rest of these accertions have yet to be proven.

The section of land that they were created to serve is only public property if it is public property.

But still "the states" you speak of must be specifically defined somewhere. It is possible for private interest to create something called STATE OF TEXAS and pretend that it was an organic and lawful government all the while knowing it was just the sudivision of a private company. The obvious potential of that being done even these days doesn't need spelling out. But even still there could also one or more other "State of Texas". That said, there was also said to be a "United States" formed at Westminister. Its already established that there can be five people in the same building named John--which John? Its not that complicated--you have to know in your own head what you are referring to.

Nor did you... with respects to my question.

I was replying to the starter of the thread not to you.

Is the state of Nature God's kingdom (a.k.a. Kingdom of Heaven, a.k.a. Universal Kingdom of God, etc..), from your prespective?

Lessons in legal grammer:

Consider "John of the Smith Family" compared to "John of the family Smith". They are not the same. Therefore, to answer your question: no.

How could you or anyone say, as a matter of fact, that "you are/were in Colorado", unless you were an employee of that corporation?

And to answer your question: all someone has to do is open their mouth and say it. Its easy! Whether its wise to do so or not is another issuer.

Please be advised that I never said I was "in" Colorado. I perhaps stood on land that I call Colorado. Perhaps if I were offroading and someone pushed me into a pool of mud, then I could say I was "in Colorado". Or maybe if dived into a river called Colorado I could say I was "in Colorado".

[mrg]

British East India Company 1707

[fulltitle]

Without Prejudice.
So now boys and girls..ladies and gentlemen...lets consider the word "company"--two specific definitions:

Company

1) A subdivision of a military regiment or battalion that constitutes the lowest administrative unit. It is usually under the command of a captain and is made up of at least two platoons.

2) A ship's crew and officers.

"Charter granted by Queen Elizabeth to the Governor and Company of the Merchants of London, Trading into the East Indies, 31st December, in the 43rd Year of Her Reign, Anno Domini sixteen hundred.

"Elizabeth, by the Grace of God, Queen of England, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, et cetera. To all our Officers, Ministers, and Subjects, and all other People, as well within this our realm of England as elsewhere, under our Obedience and Jurisdiction, greeting.

"Whereas our most dear and loving Cousin, George, Earl of Cumberland, and our well-beloved Subjects, Sir John Hart of London, Knight, Sir John Spencer of London, Knight, William Starkey, William Smith, John Ellecot, Robert Bailey, and Roger Cotton, have been Petitioners unto us for our Royal Assent and Licence to be granted unto them, that they, at their own Adventures, Costs, and Charges, as well as for the Honour of this our Realm of England, as for the Increase of our Navigation, and advancement of Trade of Merchandise, set forth one or more Voyages, with convenient Number of Ships and pannaces, by way of Traffick and Merchandise to the East-Indies, in the Countries and Parts of Asia and Africa, and to as many of the Islands, Ports and Cities, Towns and Places, thereabouts, as where Trade and Traffic may by all Likelihood be discovered, established or had; divers of which Countries, and many of the Islands, Cities and Ports thereof, have long been discovered by others of our Subjects, albeit not frequented in Trade or Merchandise."

[aksis]

fulltitle,

You have introduced confusion, based upon hearsay and speculation[s] in the realms of possibility, into this thread.

I don't follow.

That said, there was also said to be a "United States" formed at Westminister.

Who said that? And where is their proof?


Sincerely,

Christopher Theodore: Rhodes


P.S.

Is your 'location' "kingdom of Heaven" synonymous with "Universe" or is it more akin to the title of that movie?

[fulltitle]

You have introduced confusion, based upon hearsay and speculation[s] in the realms of possibility, into this thread.

Are confusion and possibility synonymous? Care to prove your allegations? (100% Rhetorical.)

re: "United States". Who said that? And where is their proof?

Good question. The point being made was that a "United States" could have just as easily been formed in some European country and be distinct from, say, "United States of America". In other words: its perhaps childish and dense to presume that de facto or resulting estates, trusts or entities didnt crop up on the other side of the Atlantic ocean. Similarly a "Georgia" was said to have existed that was associated with the Soviet Union--not to mention the "Georgia" referring to "State of Georgia, United States". If you want to take this as useless information that's fine. But I perhaps thinking a bit more deeply might be fruitful.

But its been quite a while since I've gone into detail on this. Nonetheless, consider that "Province/Colony of Pennsylvania" was formed at Westminster with "City of Philadelphia" being a creature of "Province/Colony of Pennsylvania". The Articles of Assocation were apparently done IN "City of Philadelphia" (this is not necessarily a physical or geographic location but a logical, juristic construct--a body corporate named "City of Philadelphia"), "Province/Colony of Pennsylvania" (again based on the reading of such "Articles of Assocation").

In Respublica v. Sweers that court asserts that a body corporate named "United States" existed upon the assocation (likely alluding to "Articles of Association (1774)" which was *before* the "Revolutionary War (1776)". Thusly it might follow that specific "United States" corporation referred to in Respublica v. Sweers would be a subset of the "Province/Colony of Pennsylvania" or rather: "Province/Colony of Pennsylvania, Palace of Westminster". This is from "Charter for the Province of Pennsylvania (1681)":

Given under our Privy Seale at our Palace of Westminster the Eight and Twentieth day of February in the Three and Thirtyeth Yeare of Our Reigne.

Perhaps one could consider:

United States,
City of Philadelphia,
Colony of Pennsylvania,
Palace of Westminister,
Kingdom of England.

If you read Respublic vs. Sweers it says that no "spelled out" charter needed to exist for "United States" to exist. If Colony of Pennsylvania and the other colonies are what formed that potentially de facto corporation, and if they were all formed at Westminster--then that specific "United States" was simply an offshoot of "Colony of Pennsylvania" which itself was formed at Westminster. *curtsey*

[ P.S. I've already detailed a lot of this on another thread. Please dont waste time or energy arguing "Colony of Pennsylvania" to have been an "independent colony/state" back in 1774. ]

Am I saying any of this to be bad or good?

Is your 'location' "kingdom of Heaven" synonymous with "Universe" or is it more akin to the title of that movie?

Sounds like you'd do better to figure out exactly where *you* are rather than trying to figure out where I am. The title of the movie that you seem to be referred to is "Kingdom of Heaven" and that is not the same as "kingdom of Heaven". Did you miss the significance of the legal grammer lesson?

***

So how does this relate to the original thread.

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. Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, U.S. Ohio, 324 U.S. 652, 65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 89 L.Ed. 1252.

According to Respublic v Sweers "United States" also refers to "the colonies" united under the Articles of Association (1774) which was apparently done in City of Philadelphia, Colony of Pennsylvania, Palace of Westminster, Kingdom of England.

It is already established that "United States" "State of Texas" can refer to DIFFERENT entities, things, etc. I would tend toward suggesting that one be a bit less "fairy tale" about this pursuit of truth and really be specific. It is too clear that private companies can easily pretend to be something which they are not (i.e. deception). I'm not aiming to take sides here with respect to historical events.

And more likely of interest to the original poster is just how to determinine when one is dealing with "organic government" rather than a decoy of sorts. I figure if there is any substance or even merit for any line of thought in this thread, then it should follow that one might embrace the fact that there can be multiple entities with the same name or stile whether its "United Trust" or "United States" or "Estate of Texas" or "State of Texas".

[Jerry Pitts]

Excellent explanation fulltitle. I enjoyed reading both your explanation and the Sweers citation. That case was exceptionally well laid out.

Jerry

[fulltitle]

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Your council have taken several exceptions to the form and substance of these indictments, upon a motion in arrest of judgment. The first exception was, 'that, at the time of the offence charged, the United States were not a body corporate known in law.' But the Court are of a different opinion. From the moment of their association, the United States necessarily became a body corporate; for, there was no superior from whom that character could otherwise be derived. In England, the king, lords, and commons, are certainly a body corporate; and yet there never was any charter or statute, by which they were expressly so created.

The interesting thing about that case is that the court admits the association is what resulted in the creation of a United States. But yet goes on "..there was no superior whom from that character could otherwise be derived." Truth be told if the association the court was referring to is that Articles of Assocation of 1774 then clearly the superior would be those that formed the association--most if not all of them were maybe formed at Palace of Westminster. To say the least, that the assocation was made and resulted in a United States' existence and that it was done in City of Philadelphia, Colony of Philadelphia is quite telling. Yet still, perhaps the court was making a big hint: that those that formed it (perhaps even indirectly) were of the king, lords and commons of the Kingdom of England which the case also refers to. That is to say: perhaps the court was even saying that the Colonies and their officers were in the association nothing but agents of the king, lords or commons of the Kingdom of England and therefore a United States--the specific one being referred to--*IS* in fact a body corporate created thereby.

If you dont get the gist, let me rephrase: the court might very well be saying: "Yep a 'United States' existed before 1776 upon association by virtue of King of England regarding it as an implied or resulting body corporate."

That said, is not already clear to readers that "Union" can refer to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"? Ah so you thought it was safe to speak of being part of "the Union" as if no one else in the universe ever considered using the word "Union"?