1 Attachment(s)
Incorporation of the USA?
Quote:
Hi there! Do you still have the link to the Articles of Incorporation? I seem to have misplaced them. Thanks!
David Merrill: Yes. Several - please be more specific?
Sorry. UNITED STATES CORP. and maybe a couple of states? Thanks!
Yesterday was the 150th Anniversary of the Civil War btw.
Like many of us, before we develop a sense of Rules of Evidence (look at 803 and 804) I grabbed a myth that the USA and US etc. are corporations and held on to that in light of this same kind of lack of evidence demonstrated in the above conversation this morning. It is impossible to prove that something does not exist, so there might be some Articles of Incorporation for the USA somewhere, but like with this email inquiry from this morning, the main reason the Articles have been somehow misplaced, is that they do not exist.
The USA is a body politic, not a corporation. The states too, are bodies politic.
Also, as implied herein, one of the characteristics to prove a corporation exists is to show the Articles of Incorporation. Also, there needs to be a larger body politic or corporate for which the new applying corporation needs to apply, to be in-corporated into - incorporation. I am not all that fluent and persons, Persons, PERSONS etc. are or can be corporations too, as well as corporations acquire quasi-human rights as Persons etc. So I will stick to what I have found, and through my own application of what I believe valid Rules of Evidence, pretend to Know about the myth that the USA is a Corporation.
Somebody once showed me the Articles of Incorporation for the USA. I cringe to share that over the Internet though. Like you see above, it is easy to think that the USA Inc. is something other than a little business in Delaware for promoting sports events. What you are reading above in that email conversation is a relic of somebody either intentionally or misintentionally construeing the USA Inc. to be government of some kind by the same Name.
This is the closest I can make of states incorporating.
The USA Corporation mythology is the basis of RAP/RuSA, where James Timothy TURNER is allegedly the President of the real (de jure) USA; as opposed to the Corporation (de facto) USA. That still manifests in some folks minds as quite real, and considering this man is writing from federal prison he probably had some help too (attached). Some of the issues evolving around the mythology arise from Eric W. MADSEN's Team Law. That is where the spokesman (the fellow who owns the server) for the Colorado Republic got this pile of garbage. - Rather than learn by example; Eric has been the Governor and Senator etc. for the Colorado Republic for over a decade now; why would he give up that Seat for newbies to the mythology?
Rather than to make a presumption that Colorado is a corporation I found the corporation that the AG does business through for making a claim against the fungible fidelity bond known as the Oath of Office. The Articles of Incorporation are pretty clear, and this just makes a lot more sense to me about my description above about corporate formations. The State of Colorado is a body politic formed by the USA, which is a body politic (constitutional republic) and the State is capable of registering corporations at the Secretary of State's office.
The whole business about the USA Corporation seems to evolve around Washington DC being a municipality - city of Washington, District of Columbia - Now the Districts formed in 1789 and chartered in 1790 for the debts of the USA - that is what you might consider a fictional overlay municipality. That is the concept, the abracadabra that people keep thinking is the federal government out in the States. However, when I showed the RAP/RuSA gang what is actually going on, they latched on to the formation of Washington DC as a formal municipal corporation in 1871 to be proof that the USA is a Corporation too, if you read some of the attachments a couple paragraphs back.
I tried to warn them, I assure you. But like with the correspondence quoted above, people like to hold their belief sets dear - regardless of how mature they (competence with running court) were when they formed them. I held on to the myth the USA and State of Colorado are corporations for quite a long time.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. The Administrative Acts around 1960-61 interleave well into the Corporation mythology too. I have a gob of information about this and will share as this thread develops.
What is the difference between an individual and a corporation?
What is the difference between an individual and a corporation?
Quote:
Conceding that the witness was an officer of the corporation under investigation, and that he was entitled to assert the rights of corporation with respect to the production of its books and papers, we are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the state. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.
Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to [201 U.S. 43, 75] act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that a state, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not, in the exercise of its sovereignty, inquire how these franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of the corporate books and papers for that purpose. The defense amounts to this: That an officer of a corporation which is charged with a criminal violation of the statute, may plead the criminality of such corporation as a refusal to produce its books. To state this proposition is to answer it. While an individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions unless protected by an immunity statute, it does not follow that a corporation, vested with special privileges and franchises, may refuse to show its hand when charged with an abuse of such privileges.
HALE v. HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43 (1906)
Can you dig it? :cool: