Are states a corporation?

[Sadliers]

Let's take California for example. You have the State of California (http://www.ca.gov/).

But then take a look at their legislatures. They are not the "State of California Legislature" but rather the "California State Legislature". http://www.legislature.ca.gov/

A state shall not make anything but gold or silver coin a tender in payment for debts. Article 1 Section 10. Yet the provision only applies to states, not corporations. Whenever payment for debts is performed by California I believe that it is through the issuance of drafts (checks) by the State of California which drafts cannot be converted to gold or silver coin. If the State of California is a corporation then there is no violation of the constitutional mandate.

Want to see some serious dancing? Try demanding an answer from the state or a judge whether the State of [your state] is a corporation. They will not answer.

So what I am looking for are facts that substantiate, disprove, or give evidence one way or another on whether or not the State of [whichever] is a corporation.

[aksis]

Sadliers,

Yes.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The name of this country. ...

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.

-- Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856)(emphasis added)

The United States Code also evidences the fact that the United States of America are a corporation:

U.S. Code > TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 176 > SUBCHAPTER A > § 3002

(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 you have it. It is an established and proven fact that the United States of America are corporations.

Now, at this point in this brief some people may be thinking that the United States are more then just corporations, they are “Nations” or “States”. This begs the question of, “What is the definition of the term 'Nation' or 'State'?” and the definition of these terms, as subject matter of International Law, come from The Law of Nations, which is authoritative International Law and is recognized as such in the Constitution of the United States (Art. I, Sec. 8. ... “To define and punish... Offences against the Law of Nations;”):

THE LAW OF NATIONS – PRELIMINARIES.
IDEA AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATIONS.

§ 1. What is meant by a nation or state.

NATIONS or states are bodies politic, societies of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safely and advantage by the joint efforts of their combined strength.

--The Law of Nations (emphasis added)

We now must look at what exactly a “society” and a “body politic” are, according to definition:

SOCIETY. A society is a number of persons united together by mutual consent, in order to deliberate, determine, and act jointly for some common purpose.

2. Societies are either incorporated and known to the law, or unincorporated, of which the law does not generally take notice.

3. By civil society is usually understood a state, (q.v.) a nation, (q.v.) or a body politic. (q.v.) Rutherf. Inst. c. 1 and 2.

4. In the civil law, by society is meant a partnership. Inst. 3, 26; Dig. 17, 2 Code, 4, 37.

BODY POLITIC. government, corporations. When applied to the government this phrase signifies the state.

2. As to the persons who compose the body politic, they take collectively the name, of people, or nation; and individually they are citizens, when considered in relation to their political rights, and subjects as being submitted to the laws of the state.

3. When it refers to corporations, the term body politic means that the members of such corporations shall be considered as an artificial person.

-- Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856)(emphasis added)

So after this short review of the definitions of the terms “Nation”, “State”, “Society”, and “body politic”, we find that all these terms regard corporations. In the case of “society”, the United States of America are obviously known to the law, and thus, in fact, are “incorporated societies”. Also, according to the definition of “body politic”, when this term refers to corporations, the members of corporations are considered artificial persons.

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/articl...e-citizen.html


Much Love,

Christopher Theodore: Rhodes

[Sadliers]

Your information is greatly appreciated. Thanks.

That also explains why they refuse to use the proper spelling of my name on the court docs (IE all caps).

[Akira-]

a 'corporation [is] a creature of the legal imagination.' State Tax Commission of Utah v. Aldrich, 316 US 174, 187 (1942).

Les fictions naissent de la loi, et non la loi des fictions. Fictions arise from the law, and not law from fictions.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Akira-

a 'corporation [is] a creature of the legal imagination.' State Tax Commission of Utah v. Aldrich, 316 US 174, 187 (1942).

Les fictions naissent de la loi, et non la loi des fictions. Fictions arise from the law, and not law from fictions.

This is not intended as argument, criticism, disagreement, etc., just a random comment (maybe quixotic, and totally irrelevant) that came to mind after reading your thoughtful, and welcomed post:

The maxim I can see.

(Although I have a problem seeing "the law," unless "the law" refers to that of the in-finite creator, which I will presume that it does.)

That opinion ("process") of [a] BAR Association attorney[ies] (under color of law, e.g. "Court") which "issues in the name of the" CEO of the "executive Power," to me, raises a question: what is "the legal imagination?"

I can see the practicality in using the tools of the surroundings ("any port in a storm," "all is fair in...," etc.), but I find maxims much more fulfilling than the blatherings of BAR Association bastard attorneys vested as are clergy.

Bastard
Pronunciation: \ˈbas-tərd\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, probably of Germanic origin; akin to Old Frisian bost marriage, Old English bindan to bind
Date:14th century

1: an illegitimate child

2: something that is spurious, irregular, inferior, or of questionable origin

Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary

[mrg]

Originally Posted by aksis

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/articl...e-citizen.html


Much Love,

Christopher Theodore: Rhodes

I enjoyed that article.

Thanks for writing and posting it.

[Akira-]

Originally Posted by mrg

The maxim I can see......

but I find maxims much more fulfilling than the blatherings of BAR Association bastard attorneys vested as are clergy.

I agree... it's tough to argue with a few thousand years of law and tradition.

[Sadliers]

Aside from the obvious, does anyone know what the courts have to say when a state does not make gold or silver coin tender for payment of debts? If the argument is that gold and silver coin is no longer in circulation then it would have to be ruled that congress cannot remove gold and silver coin from circulation because it was cause the states to violate the constitutional provision.

In some cases before the Supreme Court the ruling was, in essence, that the provision applied to the states and not private contracts. However the states simply do not pay their debts with a tender that is worth gold or silver coin. In cases from the 1800's the courts ruled that the paper money was as good as the gold or silver coin because it was; A person could go trade the paper note in for the coin.

So the thought led to the question of whether or not a state is a corporation, maybe even a wholly-owned government corporation, as contrasted with a 'state' as used in the constitutional provisions. If so then that would explain how they can get around the constitutional provision.

Does anybody have any insights as to whether I'm barking up the wrong tree on the matter?

[Sadliers]

Now for the bottom line of where all this is going. The Utah State legislature has authorized the formation of inferior courts. However it is not Utah State that administers and creates the courts, it's the State of Utah. If the State of Utah is a corporation, such as a government corporation, and is not technically the same as Utah State, then the State of Utah was never authorized to administer the court functions or to create the courts. If this is the case then the courts will have quite the problem trying to explain how they have authority never granted.

On the other hand if the courts claim that the State of Utah is the same entity as Utah State then the issue arises as to why they are violating the constitutional requirement of paying their debts with gold or silver coin. I'm trying to get the argument together and prepare for whichever avenue they may argue.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Akira-

I agree... it's tough to argue with a few thousand years of law and tradition.

Still trying to envision the "legal imagination."

LOL!