Fundamentals of "Corporatist" Logic

2 documents are the same ... 'article 3 judges' and 'no sitting judge has valid oath'.

Here are 2 case cites that i have never been able to find the true quotes as quoted to be in the transcript. I have down load the entire cases from Findlaw web site and never found the 'attritubted' quotes.

The cases are: "In a landmark Supreme Court ruling in 1795, never overturned. They ruled in Penhallow v. Doane's Administrator's: "All governments are corporations, in as much as every government is
an artificial person, an abstraction, a creature of the mind only, a government can deal only with artificial persons. The imaginary having no real substance cannot create or attain parity with the real. The legal aspect is no government, or any law agency, or court thereof can concern itself with anything other than corporations, or
artificial persons, and the contracts between them. "

AND

"Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen where private corporate commercial paper [federal reserve notes] and securities [checks] is concerned..." -- Clearfield Trust Company v. United
States, 318 U.S. 363-371, 1942"

Has anyone been able to find these references? Thanks

I don't think Corporatism is having a salutary effect on representative government in the US/UK.

I'm wondering where and how limits can be placed on corporations-with-deep-pockets so that they can no longer trump the interests of labor, the environment, and of the public at large.

[Codee]

Mabey this quote will help you out. It shows that divestment does not only occure with cash and checks, but securities more generally like a promise.

The Bank of the United States v. The Planters' Bank of Georgia (1824), 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 904, 907-908, 6 L.Ed. 244.
"It is, we think, a sound principle, that when a government becomes a partner in any trading company, it devests itself, so far as concerns the transaction of that company of its sovereign character, and takes that of a private citizen. Instead of communicating to the company its privileges and its prerogatives, it descends to a level with those with whom it associates itself, and takes the character which belongs to its associates, and to the business which is to be transacted."

I have seen the "QUOTES" you are looking for on "sovereign man" web site. However the Clearfield doctrine was not in "quotes" and as such is not one.

I do like this quote though.

Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States; 318 U.S. 363, 371 (1943).
The fact that the drawee is the United States and the laches those of its employees are not material. Cooke v. United States, 91 U.S. 389 , 398. The United States as drawee of commercial paper stands in no different light than any other drawee. As stated in United States v. National Exchange Bank, 270 U.S. 527, 534 , 46 S.Ct. 388, 389, 'The United States does business on business terms.' It is not excepted from the general rules governing the rights and duties of drawees 'by the largeness of its dealings and its having to employ agents to do what if done by a principal in person would leave no room for doubt.' Id., 270 U.S. at page 535, 46 S.Ct. at page 389.

[Libertarian]

Originally Posted by chaiyah

2 documents are the same ... 'article 3 judges' and 'no sitting judge has valid oath'.

Here are 2 case cites that i have never been able to find the true quotes as quoted to be in the transcript. I have down load the entire cases from Findlaw web site and never found the 'attritubted' quotes.

The cases are: "In a landmark Supreme Court ruling in 1795, never overturned. They ruled in Penhallow v. Doane's Administrator's: "All governments are corporations, in as much as every government is
an artificial person, an abstraction, a creature of the mind only, a government can deal only with artificial persons. The imaginary having no real substance cannot create or attain parity with the real. The legal aspect is no government, or any law agency, or court thereof can concern itself with anything other than corporations, or
artificial persons, and the contracts between them. "

AND

"Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen where private corporate commercial paper [federal reserve notes] and securities [checks] is concerned..." -- Clearfield Trust Company v. United
States, 318 U.S. 363-371, 1942"

Has anyone been able to find these references? Thanks

I don't think Corporatism is having a salutary effect on representative government in the US/UK.

I'm wondering where and how limits can be placed on corporations-with-deep-pockets so that they can no longer trump the interests of labor, the environment, and of the public at large.

The Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators quote is bogus; there is no such quote in that case (or in any case that I have been able to find).

[Big Al]

Originally Posted by chaiyah

2 documents are the same ... 'article 3 judges' and 'no sitting judge has valid oath'.

Here are 2 case cites that i have never been able to find the true quotes as quoted to be in the transcript. I have down load the entire cases from Findlaw web site and never found the 'attributed' quotes.

The cases are: "In a landmark Supreme Court ruling in 1795, never overturned. They ruled in Penhallow v. Doane's Administrator's: "All governments are corporations, in as much as every government is
an artificial person, an abstraction, a creature of the mind only, a government can deal only with artificial persons. The imaginary having no real substance cannot create or attain parity with the real. The legal aspect is no government, or any law agency, or court thereof can concern itself with anything other than corporations, or
artificial persons, and the contracts between them. "

AND

"Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen where private corporate commercial paper [federal reserve notes] and securities [checks] is concerned..." -- Clearfield Trust Company v. United
States, 318 U.S. 363-371, 1942"

Has anyone been able to find these references? Thanks

I don't think Corporatism is having a salutary effect on representative government in the US/UK.

I'm wondering where and how limits can be placed on corporations-with-deep-pockets so that they can no longer trump the interests of labor, the environment, and of the public at large.

The earliest case you can find where a judge says the U.S.Consistution is a contract occurred in 1833 in John Jays court. My eyes are to blurry now to look up the case, but what he said (Jay) is plain treason.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by chaiyah

Here are 2 case cites that i have never been able to find the true quotes as quoted to be in the transcript. I have downloaded the entire cases from Findlaw web site and never found the 'attributed' quotes.

There's a reason: The quotes are fakes, at least as regard these decisions.

Now, in point of fact, governments ARE corporate bodies, in the sense that they have an existence as an organization separate and distinct from any and all humans. But governments are not corporations in the usual sense - like Proctor & Gamble or Enron, etc. - because they do not apply for and obtain the usual corporate charters from the state govt, nor do they operate with the usual corporations' limited liability but rather have (at least to a degree) sovereign immunity rather than limited liability.

As for the Clearfield case, which involved the liabilities for a forged check, the court did not say that FRNs are private corporate checks or anything like that.

Customarily, when govt - even the federal govt - engages in business in the commercial marketplace -- such as when the govt buys something -- it is expected and required to abide by the usual laws and practices of the marketplace; e.g., it pays for what it purchases in a way that at least resembles the way non-govt purchasers are supposed to behave.

But this is true not just of the US govt but of virtually every govt wherever it is situated.

[REDCLOUD]

I don't think Corporatism is having a salutary effect on representative government in the US/UK.

I'm wondering where and how limits can be placed on corporations-with-deep-pockets so that they can no longer trump the interests of labor, the environment, and of the public at large.

The question really revolves around what capacity and character a government takes on when it enters a court, is sued, or contracts for goods or services. Many courts hold that they do so in a corporate capacity or "as if" they were corporations. However, this does not make them corporations. This has nothing to do with representative government. The cites are meaningless.

Extensive limits are placed on corporations in both the US and UK. The SEC in the US and Public Companies Acts in the UK are probably the most comprehensive regulators. The EPA and its UK equivalent have virtually elimanted some industries such as logging, mining, and power generation. The labor secretary in the UK has almost guaranteed employment for life in some places and in France and Denmark "birth leave" (full pay) is up to two years. The problem with labor is no longer that they need protection but the roles have reversed, business needs protection from labor. An exodus has occured in Europe and the US to areas like India and Mexico and China to escape oppressive labor organiztions.