Quote:
|
Originally Posted by quasimodo
I am not disputing the idea of the United States being a corporation -vs- The United States of America being a sovereign nation, or (for example) Texas State being a corporation -vs- The State of Texas being a sovereign state. This I believe to be true. What I'm wondering is, where is their corporate charter.
|
You're missing it... a "sovereign state" is a corporation and the document you are calling a "
corporate charter", and lookin for in this instance is actualy called a,
"constitution", (sometimes corporations are also formed with
articles of incorporation, and a few other terms are used to discribe the documents that constitute corporations).
From Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed
(1856):
"UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. ...
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. ...
"
Note that the date of the 6th edition of Bouvier's, (1856), is
BEFORE the Civil War and the 1933 bankruptcy... this is why we will keep waiting for rottweiler to prove some things that he can't.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sadliers
If the third definition of Body Politic was referring to a state or nation then it would have been specifically identified as had been done in the previous 2 definitions. Thus we cannot conclude that the definition applies to states or nation(s).
As we see this hits at the foundation of the brief. So how would you reply to this counter-argument?
|
I would reply: You need to re-read the brief, this issue is addressed in it already, yet again from Bouvier's Law Dictionary, the definition:
"UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. ... 5.
The United States of America are a corporation..."
The 3rd definition applies because of
this fact. So yes, we can make such a conclusion.
Granted, if you wanted to make a distinction between a
political corporation and a
private corporation, then you may... I believe it would make for a good thread.
I am simply looking at corporations, both public and private. The main difference I note is the services being provided, and then the structure and function of the organizations.
Also keep in mind, co-owners of corporations have
no obligation to be officers or employees. They may if they like, and to be an Officer or employee of any of the United States of America
et al., one must first, and also, be a co-owner.
Quote:
|
If you're a member of a society you're still a man.
|
NO
. Review the definition of society. A "member" of "society" is going to be an
artificial person. A man/woman can hold a membership, but you are not your membership here at suijuris.net. It is a separate entity, a persona.
MEMBER. This word has various significations: 1. The limits of the body useful in self-defence. Membrum est pars corporis habens destinatum operationem in corpore. Co. Litt. 126 a. See Limbs.
2.-2. An individual who belongs to a firm, partnership, company or corporation. Vide Corporation; Partnership.
3.-3. One who belongs to a legislative body, or other branch of the government; as, a member of the house of representatives; a member of the court. --Bouvier's
I am just trying to be very clear on this point not create semantical argument. The term "member" is like a cell, in an organ, in a body... politic.
Quote:
|
This would include a man that belongs to a society that has acknowledged certain rights, such as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and siezures, the right to counsel when charged with a crime, the right to remain silent when charged with a crime, etc.
|
Those are unalienable human rights. Not civil or political rights. Further, consider sovereign rights, as this are more true to you political rights and civil rights. What are a sovereigns political and civil rights?
Quote:
|
It is not unusual to hear a case cited as "the people of [a state] verses [your name]".
|
If no man or woman, that is a member of the body politic of a state has been harmed, then the man/woman appearing in persona of "DA" (or some other persona) has no authorization. The "people" the DA claims to represent have failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. There is no sworn statement. There is only a public servant trying to trick you into admitting that, at the time of some code violation, you were acting in the capacity of "Citizen" and are thus subject to the codes, rules, regulations, etc.. that are only applicable to members of the political body. Military and civilian are both public terms. Someone in the military is subject to court martial, a civilian is subject to Administrative Hearings.
The only time one should be using the Office of Citizen is when they vote, or are preforming some other public function. The rest of the time, they should not think of them selves as citizens, as they are not "in Office".
I like the refusal for cause approach.
For a situation where this would not prove to be valid, the accusations against David Copperfield will server as an example.
This is an accusation of a rape, by a woman (who has also delegated a small portion of sovereign powers to the state) and who is compelling our public servants against David Copperfield.
It is by her sworn statement and her sovereign authority that the men/women in persona of "FBI agents" (and other public servants) moved against David (sovereign
vs. sovereign), and now the man acting in persona of DA has proper authorization to proceed.
Without this woman, it would be a court full of public servants and David (servants
vs. sovereign)... and he has the authority to simply dismiss everyone as no one at court would be there of an equal or even a higher rank.... unless they could trick him into appearing as an Officer of the State (servant
vs. servant).
Keep in mind there are other issue that I am not addressing involved in this matter with David Copperfield as I am staying focused upon the example of a situation that one couldn't simply Refuse for Cause.
Granted, is such situations, one may have to make an issue if the
moving party is not making the complaint in their
proper person (sovereign), yet when there is someone who has actually been harmed this will be done.
I like what mrg had to say about this:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mrg
In "real Party at Interest, I am intending to identify and force an accusation from the Plaintiff/Real party at Interest, wherein, a Proceeding issues purportedly forwarding UNITED STATES or some such artificial entity as plaintiff.
I do not see that such artificial entity could tangibly be an injured party, or have an injury, and would insist that a flesh and blood man/men or woman/women must bring charges appear in and as the flesh and blood, prove injury, state a complaint upon which a claim upon which relief can be granted, and provide remedy by which he/she/they may be made whole.
|
While rottweiler would say: "The private foreign federal union has sovereign immunity over it's subjects."
I think it would be clearer and lack the
conspiracy theory spin is if we simply told it like it is:
A corporation has authority over it's employees.
If you don't like it, resign or don't "go to work"... In the even you are "at work" (the only job a citizen has is casing a vote, unless they hold some other position and/or preform other public functions), follow the codes, rules, regulations, etc.. while you are on duty, and do as good a job as you can.
There is nothing wrong with public service, so long as one is knowingly and willingly serving... else we call it slavery, fraud, or ignorance.
Sincerely,
Christopher Theodore: Rhodes
