Incorporation of the USA?

[David Merrill]

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.

[Frederick Burrell]

Thanks David

Interesting info to be sure. If the US in not a corp., which I believe now to be true. How is it we get entangled in contracts with them.

Is this contract situation more along the lines of the trust many are talking about. The united States of America held in trust by the United States. Is this due to the assumption of debt by the United States in relation to the debts owed by the states. Frederick Burrell.

Thanks for posting info on the Corporation, or lack there of.

[David Merrill]

Thanks David

Interesting info to be sure. If the US in not a corp., which I believe now to be true. How is it we get entangled in contracts with them.

Is this contract situation more along the lines of the trust many are talking about. The united States of America held in trust by the United States. Is this due to the assumption of debt by the United States in relation to the debts owed by the states. Frederick Burrell.

Thanks for posting info on the Corporation, or lack there of.

I have heard about that. Formation of the Public Trusts.

[motla68]

I have heard about that. Formation of the Public Trusts.

Last edited by David Merrill; Today at 12:29 AM.

I grabbed that Judiciary Act before you edited it out, interesting, the first page reveals a lot. You could not sell merchandise/goods made in the survey of the United States to the indians without a license, Also in last paragraph you cannot import merchandise/goods into there survey without paying duty fees. Sure sounds like being under military siege to me.
Additionally see back in the first paragraph where the merchandise/goods are forfeited and received by criminal charges for "partial benefit of the Person suing [ The State ] and for partial benefit of the United States".
This is an important key area in describing what I said about everything the state creates for themselves through their vendors is for their benefit, especially all that paper, seals and plastic cards called drivers licenses. make sense?

[Sovereignty]

What was the District of Columbia 1871 if not a corp?

[shikamaru]

What was the District of Columbia 1871 if not a corp?

District of Columbia is a municipal corporation. A city-state if you will.

[shikamaru]

The United States is a corporation.

Respublica v. Sweers

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.

BODY CORPORATE. Corporation

[Frederick Burrell]

The United States is a corporation.

Respublica v. Sweers

Thanks for posting this. fB

[David Merrill]

The United States is a corporation.

Respublica v. Sweers

The United States was questionably deemed to be like a corporation ten years before it became a body politic. In 1789 it became a body politic. Look at the date on the case. Listen to the sentence before your quote:

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.

In that period the prosecution was grasping for something to compare the loosely associated state to, so they did - the Parliament of England. In that time frame the US was no longer Colonies but again they were not a constitutional republic either.

Thanks though, that period is very interesting and I enjoyed you challenging my premise with that case.

[shikamaru]

The United States was questionably deemed to be like a corporation ten years before it became a body politic. In 1789 it became a body politic. Look at the date on the case.

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.

I think what should be said is that whatever title is affixed to a given corpus (body), it all descends from the Law of Associations.
Now, I know most people don't know this for this is never spoken of or stated until now.

Any State or league is composed of two bodies: a body politic and a body corporate. Government is a political body corporate. The body politic is the society of people joined together in an association. Government IS NOT the State. The State is the people united into a society. A society is one type of association.

I will see what I can dig up to support all that I have stated above.

From most distinct to most broad:

Law of Corporations -> Law of Companies -> Law of Associations