Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: The united states is still a british colony

  1. #11
    Senior Member Treefarmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    in the woods known to some as Tanasi
    Posts
    476
    Quote Originally Posted by shikamaru View Post
    I miss Against the Grain Press ='(
    Me too.
    That was one of my favorite websites while it lasted.
    Treefarmer

    There is power in the blood of Jesus

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by allodial View Post
    There is a court case that mentions that the United States (corp.) existed prior to the revolution of 1776. There was a reference to such online....but....*shrugs*
    Respublica v. Sweers (1779)

    US government being the body corporate, "We the People" is the body politic as well as an association.

  3. #13
    That's the one. I have it on one of my archival harddrives waiting for a new home.

    Your council have taken several exceptions to the form and substance of these indictments, upon a motion in arrest of judgment. 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. 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. (Respublica v. Sweers (1779))
    Can you say "de facto corporation"--the thirteenth colony perhaps? The Articles of Association of 1774 would likely be the association being referred to.

    The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen states expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was “to form a more perfect Union. [Inaugural address of Abraham Lincoln, on taking Oath of Office as President of the United Statees, March 4, 1861. per Appletons' annual cyclopaedia and register of important events, Volume 1 (1864)]
    There are other perspectives:

    The essence of this argument is that the colonies formed a new nation in 1774 and any statement of their independence or the subsequent constitutions they entered into simply “matured” this new nation. The facts however do not support Lincoln’s fable. The Union, as it existed in Lincoln’s time, as well as today for that matter, began with the ratification of our current Constitution—not before.

    While it is true the Articles of Association brought together twelve of the thirteen colonies (Georgia did not participate) for a common purpose, it did not form a new government, national or otherwise. This Association was nothing more than an agreement among the colonies, each acting on their own, to participate in a trade boycott against the British Empire.

    Lincoln’s claim that the Articles of Association formed a Union is demonstrably false, since all one needs to do is refer to the language of the Articles themselves to see that this was not the case at all. To begin with, throughout this document, the colonies remained true to their allegiance to the British Crown, where for example, the preamble proclaims, “We, his majesty’s most loyal subjects.” It is also noteworthy that the frequently stated purpose of these Articles defined them as a, “…non-importation agreement….”

    Even more significantly, consider what was missing from these Articles. For one, there was no expressed intent or specific language establishing a union or compact among the colonies with powers to perform any functions of a government. Furthermore, these colonies never delegated or surrender any power or authority to any other entity, governmental or otherwise.

    Therefore, as far as the Articles of Association was concerned—the very foundation of Lincoln’s argument—there was nothing whatsoever supporting the idea that the colonies established any new central authority. Despite the premise of Lincoln’s argument being at odds with the facts, there are other ingredients of Lincoln’s so-called nation creating argument deserving further examination.(Source)
    Last edited by allodial; 09-27-11 at 09:20 PM.
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

  4. #14
    It helps to do some research on the treatment of corporations in Roman Civil, English Common, and American Law in addition to researching the terms body politic and body corporate.

    Blackstone's Commentaries treatment of corporations is very informative.

    The Law of Associations is the root of it all followed by Companies Law and finally, Corporate Law.

  5. #15
    Let us also recall that colonies were private holdings of either the Crown or Parliament.

    Colonies were established for purposes of commerce amongst other reasons.

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by shikamaru View Post
    Let us also recall that colonies were private holdings of either the Crown or Parliament.

    Colonies were established for purposes of commerce amongst other reasons.
    Not necessarily so. The charters might have been PRIVATE between the Crown and the other side of the coin, but they were not necessarily private holdings of the Crown exclusively. The Mayflower Compact, for example, the folks getting on the boat were taking the primary risk and the deal was AFAIK cut for them to have control with the Crown getting a kickback.

    Might seem unrelated, Star Trek is rather telling. The ship is called "The Enterprise"... NCC stands for "Naval Construction Contract". Easy to get the gist.



    Ya just gotta get it that there isn't much different between sending a spaceship halfway across a galaxy and sending a boat across an ocean jurisprudentially speaking. You get a construction contract, bid/performance/payment bonds, obligor, obligee, insurance/bottomory type issues might still apply.



    Can you say "surety"? There is a reason vessels (even merchant marines) are militarized => oath of allegiance (i.e. contract) enforceable in ADMIRALTY. Do you just put $50 BN or whatever worth of machinery in someone's hands without some kind of guaranty or bond? Ah that is what admiralty is for. Admiralty is the only primary 'venue' for enforcing contracts across oceans. The Colonial Charters..Mayflower Compact or the like might conceivably ride on the original ship charters or agreements (ala East India Company).
    Last edited by allodial; 09-29-11 at 01:53 AM.
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

  7. #17

    Flag of the East India Company.

    III. Saving, that they having chosen a governor in chief, and prepared instructions for him, they shall be approved, and a commission given by us, And that further, such governor in chief, as well as other deputy governors, commanders, and officers, shall be held to take an oath of allegiance to us and also to the Company.

    IV. And if the aforesaid Company in and of the aforesaid places shall be cheated under the appearance of friendship, or badly treated, or shall suffer loss in trusting their money or Goods, without having restitution, or receiving payment for them, they may use the best methods in their power, according to the situation of their affairs, to obtain satisfaction.

    V. And if it should be necessary for the establishment, security and defence of this trade, to take any troops with them, we will, according to the constitution of this country, and the situation of affairs furnish the said Company with such troops, provided they be paid and supported by the Company.

    VI. Which troops, besides the oath already taken to us and to his excellency, shall swear to obey the commands of the said Company, and to endeavour to promote their interest to the utmost of their ability.
    Clearly was (and perhaps still is) a military organization.





    Military brand olive oil, anyone? Keep in mind the British connection with Pakistan.

    After relative stability emerged in the 1970s, and after the 1979 peace treaty with Israel, the military found themselves with many more young men in their ranks than they could keep occupied. So, they developed businesses to employ the former soldiers. The military gave private developers access to the land that served as coastal bases in exchange for shares in the resorts they built there. This was part of a deliberate strategy, developed under Nasser, to have a self-sufficient military. Some estimates put the military’s contribution to the Egyptian economy at 30-40 percent (other estimates claim a more modest 10 percent). A leaked diplomatic cable explained that Egyptian military-owned companies are “particularly active in the water, olive oil, cement, construction, hotel and gasoline industries.”
    What are we gonna do with this military zone that is huge and in the most desirable part of the country and has extremely beautiful beaches, and some of the greatest … coral reefs in the world and was absolutely crying out for touristic development?
    The answer: The military gave private developers access to the land, and the developers made military officers shareholders in big tourist developments.(Source)
    Do you really figure that its all that different for the USA? Can you say ... Halliburton?
    Last edited by allodial; 09-29-11 at 04:08 AM.
    All rights reserved. Without prejudice. No liability assumed. No value assured.

    "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
    "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2
    Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Thess. 5:21.

  8. #18
    Rare downloads of "the Informer"!!!!

    http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index....=145897.0;wap2

    Get it while its hawt .

  9. #19
    Last edited by shikamaru; 10-01-11 at 01:04 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •