Are states a corporation?

[Jerry Pitts]

Oh! Definitely, I get the gist of what you are saying, and agree 100%. On another possible scenario, it also implies that the 'people' are still subjects of the King; that the War with England was due in part to a potential 'take-over' of that segment of the mother corporation; and also that the 'Constitution' really is in FACT a corporate charter.

My question at this point, is: who are the beneficiaries of the alleged 'trust' that was formulated as a result of the 'incorporation'? Who are the stockholders and who are the shareholders? Who is the REAL Trustee of the Trust?

Jerry

[fulltitle]

Without Prejudice.

My question at this point, is: who are the beneficiaries of the alleged 'trust' that was formulated as a result of the 'incorporation'? Who are the stockholders and who are the shareholders? Who is the REAL Trustee of the Trust?

Very good question. Another question: just how many "United States" conceivably are there? Follow the money?

[aksis]

Perhaps a review of Blackstone On Corporation would be helpful. (do make note that the Colonies are municipal corporations):

Blackston on Laws of England


After reading Respublica (and other research), I am sure you and others are speculating and drawing some erroneous conclusions.

Cornelius Sweers: After a fair and full trial, you have been convicted of the crime of Forgery, upon two indictments, by a Special Jury of your country... 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.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/1/41/case.html

Originally Posted by fulltitle

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 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)":

It doesn't matter that the colonies [viz "United States" via Articles of Association (1774)] were the King's Chartered municipal corporations *before* the execution (1776) of the Declaration of Independence ["Revolutionary War"? It didn't end until 1783].

Note the sentencing in Respublica:

Sentence, on the first indictment: A fine of L. 70. and imprisonment until the 4th of July, the anniversary of American Independence.

The Treaty of Peace done at Paris (1783) was not even signed yet. The Declaration of Independence's execution was the point when the people's Independence was formaly re-established, not when the King recognized it. That quashes the rubbish about the Declaration of Independence not being a "legal document".

So...

The Declaration of Independence has already been executed, the United States of America were already recognized as independent and sovereign by the time Respublica happened (November, 1778 - April, 1779), and the formal Constitutions of the most of the States were already executed by 1776-77 (see: Yale - Charters) and the Articles of Confederation (see: usconstitution.net) were executed by most of the states in 1778.


In Respublica: Sweers' council tried to say, 'that, at the time of the offence charged, the United States were not a body corporate known in law.', this was, according to the Jury, after he had, "contriving and intending, falsely and fraudulently, to deceive and defraud the United States aforesaid, with force and arms, falsely, wickedly and unlawfully, did make, forge and counterfeit, and cause to be made, forged and counterfeited, a certain writing, purporting to be a receipt for one thousand and twenty pounds and fifteen shillings, and purporting to be signed in the name of one Adam Foulk, in the words and figures following, to wit, '3 Rec'd 1st July 1777 of Col. B. Flower, C. G. M. S. one thousand and twenty pounds 15s. for 820 bayonet belts, and 920 cartouch boxes, for the use of the army."

"But the Court are of a different opinion.", and held that, "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.", and the Court also noted that there wasn't even a need for the Articles of Association, and pointed out that, "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."

Which you note here:

Originally Posted by fulltitle

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*

Yet, your implication that the United States is some kind of franchise of the municipal corporation "Colony of Pennsylvania" is baseless and in error and Respublic doesn't support this conclusion.

Originally Posted by fulltitle

...Please dont waste time or energy arguing "Colony of Pennsylvania" to have been an "independent colony/state" back in 1774.

The thought hadn't crossed my mind... It is as irrelevant as it is false.

Originally Posted by fulltitle

Sounds like you'd do better to figure out exactly where *you* are rather than trying to figure out where I am.

... Did you miss the significance of the legal grammer lesson?

I am where I have always been: In the Universe, on Earth. Where did you think you were/are? IN some imaginary bubble called "Colorado"? That kind of thinking is a mild form of psychosis.

Btw, speaking of missed lessons, did you miss the one on swatting at "gnats" while you swallow "camels"?

§644. (6) Corporate name.—When a corporation is erected, a name must be given to it; and by that name alone it must sue, and be sued, and do all [475] legal acts; though a very minute variation therein is not material Such name is the very being of its constitution; and, though it is the will of the king that erects the corporation, yet the name is the knot of its combination, without which it could not perform its corporate functions." The name of incorporation, says Sir Edward Coke, is as a proper name, or name of baptism; and therefore when a private founder gives his college or hospital a name, he does it only as a godfather; and by the same name the king baptizes the incorporation.*7

i 10 Rep. 33. w Gilb. Hist. C. P. 182.
v Ibid. 122. x 10 Rep. 28.
_______________________________

*7 Authority to create corporations.—The crown has at all times exercised the prerogative of creating corporations by charter or letters patent, and may still do so upon the advice of a responsible minister.

Further, neither Earth, or the Universe are any kind of "corporation", formal or implied.

Perhaps the Christian Nation is... ecclesiastical societies...

Originally Posted by fulltitle

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.

So what? That all changed. The municipal corporations that the colonies had been evolved into the political corporations of the United States of America.

Originally Posted by fulltitle

I would tend toward suggesting that one be a bit less "fairy tale" about this pursuit of truth and really be specific.

This is exactly why I have been asserting the fact that Citizen is the title of an Office of a political corporation.

The idea that doppelganger private corporation have secretly taken over the United States of America is not something I have seen anyone prove... just speculate about.

"United States" is an alias of "United States of America". Even in Bouvier's, there is no such distinction being made, in the definition of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, we find: "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The name of this country. The United States, now thirty-one in number, are... a corporation endowed with the capacity to sue and be sued, to convey and receive property. 1 Marsh. Dec. 177, 181."

It is easily proven that the United States are public corporations and that Citizen is the title of an Office.

It is also easily proven that as an Officer, an employee, of a public corporation, one is going to be subject to public policy and all the codes, rules and regulations...

Perhaps a discourse upon the topic of public vs private is in order?



Sincerely,

Christopher Theodore: Rhodes

P.S.

Thank's for the Respublica v. Sweers case. It will beef up the revision I am doing on the Office of Citizen brief. It clearly supports that England is a body corporate as well.

[aksis]

So how does this relate to the original thread.

How does this relate to the organic definition?


Sincerely,

Christopher Theodore: Rhodes

[aksis]

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

... and also that the 'Constitution' really is in FACT a corporate charter.

My question at this point, is: who are the beneficiaries of the alleged 'trust' that was formulated as a result of the 'incorporation'? Who are the stockholders and who are the shareholders? Who is the REAL Trustee of the Trust?

Jerry

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish... insure... provide.. promote... and secure the Blessings... to ourselves and our Posterity

Who else could it be other then the People and their Posterity?


Sincerely,

Christopher Theodore: Rhodes

[Sadliers]

Originally Posted by SaveUncleSam

So it is well established that states and UNITED STATES are foreign corporstions. What about my town? Where can I check to see where TOWN OF and CITY OF are registered? As well as STATE OF and COMMONWEALTH OF? Where can I get corporate filings for Peurto Rico?
Also, what is it about DELAWARE that many corporations like credit card companies are registered/located there? Any ideas?

S.U.S.

I can't say for other states, but where I live a person can go down to the city offices and ask when they incorporated. As I was growing up the area I lived in also became a city and this was done by a vote of the residents and submitting the papers for incorporation to the state.

Here is a link for checking out corporate names: https://www.nrai.com/OnlineDatabaseLinks.aspx

One that aroused my suspicion was the "UTAH CORPORATION" filed in Puerto Rico; However I doubt there is anything to it as far as what I'm trying research. Good luck trying to find known government corporations.

Here is an interesting reference written by a lawyer regarding government corporations: http://osaka.law.miami.edu/~froomkin...s/reinvent.htm

[aksis]

Originally Posted by Sadliers

Good luck trying to find known government corporations.

Sadliers,

The day the constitution for the particular State was ordained and established is the day it incorporated.
The Avalon Project at Yale Law School Charters section has the text of the organic constitutions for the 13 state, and earlier documents. You can find the dates of incorporation by looking them over.

You can get a certified copy of any state's current Constitution (articles of incorporation) from that state's Secratary of State. All the state publish a digital version on line, i.e., Arizona publishes it's digital version of Arizona's Constitution at this url: http://www.azleg.gov/Constitution.asp

I am having a hard time finding this info via google, but I believe the organic document[s], (with the wet ink signatures), that there were probably a few duplicated sets of each made for each State. One of the complete set of duplicate originals will be in the state's public records i.e. http://www.lib.az.us/museum/index.cfm and one of the other duplicate originals will be in the National Archives.

I'm not sure how many duplicate originals are created (it will probably vary), but I am pretty sure there is more then one complete document set and each set is signed and sealed.


Sincerely,

Christopher Theodore: Rhodes

[Sadliers]

Actually I was referring to government corporations such as Tennessee Valley Authority, not bodies politic.

[Jerry Pitts]

In the excerpted and quoted portion of your text below, I find an uncanny invitation to explore the teachings of Lysander Spooner.

If the original documents (Constitutions or Articles of Incorporation) were requirred to bear a 'wet ink signature' Then it is also obvious that these signatures had to be placed on the documents by the people with whom also authority was placed to make such representation. This would mean that some form of 'association' had to be established prior to the signing of those original documents, and within that association, certain people had to be given authority to be representatives of the remainder of the people who would bear an interest in the association. Can you please provide the signatures of those people that clearly named Washington, Hamilton and others as representatives of 'we the people'? So, can it be said that these signatories were ACTUAL representatives of the remainder of the 'people' of the various colonies? Was their presumed authority a matter of usurpation due to the possibility that they might have had some financial claim over the remainder of 'the people'?

The point that I saw in the Sweers case, is the fact that the Court, even after the fact, is reviewing a historical fact, which concluded in the analysis that the inception of a 'corporation' with or without written paper, begins with the formation of an 'association' of people joined together for some common cause. That fact is made expressly clear in the Sweers case.

The entire history of man has been centered around the concept of 'conquest' and the theory that the 'spoils of war go to the victor'. No society has ever been formed without having been accomplished after the event of some conflict. Even in the formation of some small group within an already existing community, a conflict will arise as to whether or not the community desires to see yet another 'association' to be formed within that community. Association is the foundation of any 'constitution or charter' and must be attained prior to the enunciation of any so-called constitution/charter. Without the 'association' the 'corporation' cannot exist.

Jerry

"I am having a hard time finding this info via google, but I believe the organic document[s], (with the wet ink signatures), that there were probably a few duplicated sets of each made for each State. One of the complete set of duplicate originals will be in the state's public records i.e. http://www.lib.az.us/museum/index.cfm and one of the other duplicate originals will be in the National Archives.

I'm not sure how many duplicate originals are created (it will probably vary), but I am pretty sure there is more then one complete document set and each set is signed and sealed.


Sincerely,

Christopher Theodore: Rhodes"

[rentiap]

Originally Posted by aksis

Who else could it be other then the People and their Posterity?


Sincerely,

Christopher Theodore: Rhodes

You are correct. It is to we the People and their Posterity.
NOT.
we the people and their Posterity