Incorporation of the USA?

[David Merrill]

I don't think the State wants you to assume your role as one of the People of the nation.
William Thornton has some great material on the above.

The best way to do this studying of corporations, in my opinion, and their myriad of forms is to study Roman Law (Roman Civil Law) and English Common Law.

Our law system is a mix of Roman Civil Law and English Common Law. The Common Law is the private side. Roman Civil Law the public side. Common Law is of "the People" (although most English subjects hated Common Law). Roman Civil fLaw is of government.

The sovereignty of the King devolved on to "the People".



You rock, man. I will make sure to add it to my repository when available.

I wish those things were true. Common law is case law. And William THORNTON was a let-down. He spent a weekend trying to import California policy to Colorado which are two very different beasts since California became a state before the War Between the States. I sat with him for lunch and discovered his origins with Richard MacDONALD and Sri David Conrad ROBERTS, which is a book in itself. Mostly though, as he was giving his Bicycle Helmet case for an example of his methods, I realized that it was going for ten years without results! I mentioned that and the whole seminar really took on a different flavor.

The fellow promoting William, who made arrangements was coming out to Black Forest Sunday morning and was stopped. He tried a direct Refusal for Cause, where you just write it on the Uniform Summons, Complaint and Penalty Assessment and it worked so well, the officer made him surrender his copy and wrote a new one! That is pretty revealing. When the officer presented the second one he walked slowly up to the minivan and lunged forward, stuffed it in the window and ran back to his car! Unbelievable! Well, this confused the suitor to throw the presentment back out of the window. I suppose it would be a bit disconcerting.

The cop was back in his car so the suitor left. He was captured by about six cars from two counties, maybe eight LEOs with guns trained on him. I left the seminar early to go bail him out. He got his bail back with no hearings after I drew up this Order and Decree. It was a strange Refusal for Cause though, because of the unusual arrest and I suppose the cop wanted nothing to do with it actually - it was such a clerical mess!

That was an interesting ride though; while it lasted. Memories! I remember when that is what I thought though.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Frederick Burrell]

Great work. Thanks for taking the time to post it. It clears up a lot of things for me, being a newbie to this stuff. fB

[Mark Christopher]

The Emergency is that no State or Confederation of States may secede from the Union. [That is the Emergency (extraordinary occasion) that allows the President to perpetuate emergencies by Executive Order like you see in the Update Video you linked.] Some consider it a good thing, that States may form into the Union and not be granted the freedom to leave again. As evidenced by the due date for an Income Tax Return still being April 15th and a declaration on all the fiat of the United States IN GOD WE TRUST. I will show you through it:

Oh oh...the tax return is not the 15th it is the 18th this year. Why would they change it on the 150th year anniversary?(yes I know to give you more time to do them over the weekend but I dont recall them doing that unless it is a sunday!)

OK hope I am not beating a dead horse here but I am a little unclear about the state of emergency (SOE) you mention. Here are the things I understood
1. NO SOE can last more than 2 years with out a renewal.
2. There is a current SOE with regards to terrorist.
3. I may have misunderstood but it sounds like there is still a SOE from 1861 basically because the states may secede from the union at anytime?

Awesome thread so far
MC

[shikamaru]

Common law is case law.

In one context, yes.

In another context, Common Law is lex non-scripta or unwritten law.

Thornton's material helped me to connect many dots.
Whether it works in court is another story.
His theory, in my opinion, is sound. You can find historical precedence for much of it.

[shikamaru]

Great work. Thanks for taking the time to post it. It clears up a lot of things for me, being a newbie to this stuff. fB

Here is a pretty wicked treatise on corporations written in 1793 by Stewart Kyd

http://books.google.com/books?id=I5ADAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Law+of+Corporations&hl=en&ei=Yj-WTfvhMOew0QGA1_WGDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CEwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

As always, chain your knowledge from oldest to most recent rolling the aggregate of it all forward to the present.

This is a really interesting book on Roman Civil Law. A section is devoted to corporations

http://books.google.com/books?id=WwFbAAAAQAAJ&dq=Roman%20Civil%20Law%20corporations&pg=PA626#v=onepage&q=Roman%20Civil%20Law%20corporations&f=false

Corporations are societies. The formation, maintenance, and dissolution of societies.

[David Merrill]

In one context, yes.

In another context, Common Law is lex non-scripta or unwritten law.

Thornton's material helped me to connect many dots.
Whether it works in court is another story.
His theory, in my opinion, is sound. You can find historical precedence for much of it.

I would not bash THORNTON except that he was importing a State's law into Colorado, which never properly formed a Territory. The survey is skewed to allow that fiat began here. I will connect that whole thing together when a thread seems ready, or the lesson plan dictates it - soon! It is really fascinating how this all goes together into a giant mosaic. [That photo is from The Craft of Intelligence - by Allen Welsh DULLES the formative Director of Central Intelligence (he was actually the second Director but held that position for eleven years after the first only held it for over one).]

Oh oh...the tax return is not the 15th it is the 18th this year. Why would they change it on the 150th year anniversary?(yes I know to give you more time to do them over the weekend but I dont recall them doing that unless it is a sunday!)

OK hope I am not beating a dead horse here but I am a little unclear about the state of emergency (SOE) you mention. Here are the things I understood
1. NO SOE can last more than 2 years with out a renewal.
2. There is a current SOE with regards to terrorist.
3. I may have misunderstood but it sounds like there is still a SOE from 1861 basically because the states may secede from the union at anytime?

Awesome thread so far
MC

The ongoing Emergency, like shown in the video snippet, is that the President has power of Executive Order at all!

[shikamaru]

I would not bash THORNTON except that he was importing a State's law into Colorado, which never properly formed a Territory. The survey is skewed to allow that fiat began here. I will connect that whole thing together when a thread seems ready, or the lesson plan dictates it - soon! It is really fascinating how this all goes together into a giant mosaic. [That photo is from The Craft of Intelligence - by Allen Welsh DULLES the formative Director of Central Intelligence (he was actually the second Director but held that position for eleven years after the first only held it for over one).]

There does exist such a beast known as comity ....

[WatchmanOnTheTower]

Guys,
The reason tax day is April 18 this year is because April 15th is Emancipation Day, a Washington D.C. holiday (starting in 2005), normally falling on April 16th, but because April 16 is a Saturday, Emancipation Day is moved to Friday, thus making the filing deadline move to Monday.

Very weird set of circumstances.

[shikamaru]

What is the difference between an individual and a corporation?

What is the difference between an individual and a corporation?

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?

[motla68]

There is much debate even on these such things these days, the typical chicken and egg argument of what came first and of which has more authority. Natural rights which seem to existed before government was created or legal rights which are derived from a social contract. The architects of this country have done their best to split the conscience for us to give us a choice I believe. A woman was said to have asked Ben Franklin something that goes like this; " senator Franklin, what have you give us? " and Ben replied " a Republic if you can keep it ". It appears that at this point the equitable trust was created. Now most of these guys were avid readers of biblical doctrines and in that book there is 2 of everything and the demand for Gold coin from the Republic government was at a all time high and it was getting quite a inconvenience to carry all them coins and it left them vulnerable to pirates and thieves, they needed a way to bond up the currency and make it easier to carry along with providing security for the men and women that used it and a way to secure the currency as well,
A new trust had to be formed for this new plan so the representatives from each state got together and created a constitution, this led the the creation of legal persons, the second part that would spread like wildfire across the country and the people wanting to be protected from savages were more then happy to accept a security blanket.

The point I am trying to make here is that one has natural rights to roam the land and live their life, prosper and be happy, equitable exchanges were made without the need for money for every exchange that took place, this is when equity courts were the authority, BUT then here comes a monetary system, waiving the proverbial golden carrot literally and Big Corporations the headmaster of the system. When one accepts a Person(piece of paper) as themselves for money they have basically traded the abundant foundation the creator had given us for a bowl of soup then soon after the moral decay to follow. When one makes such a choice if violates the Maxim of Law: Disparata Non Debent Jungi (Unequal things ought not to be joined)
Further we have traded what was acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence of all men being created equal to a monetary system as noted in the Constitution. A free will choice was given to us. Does any of the commandments from the creator say " let their be money "?

Further discussions from other consciences on these 2 subjects can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

[David Merrill]

What is the difference between an individual and a corporation?



HALE v. HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43 (1906)

Can you dig it?

Note the Date - 1906. That was before the Fed Act - 1913.



P.S. Motla68;

The solution you propose is by and large impracticable. Redeeming lawful money by demand is much easier for fixing a flat or putting food in your mouth. There was a promoter of the same approach you propose on SJC named Bean. He even told us that he never uses money at all, only specie but he never really would tell us how to buy a burrito at Taco Bell without being taken to the cleaners.

[motla68]

Note the Date - 1906. That was before the Fed Act - 1913.



P.S. Motla68;

The solution you propose is by and large impracticable. Redeeming lawful money by demand is much easier for fixing a flat or putting food in your mouth. There was a promoter of the same approach you propose on SJC named Bean. He even told us that he never uses money at all, only specie but he never really would tell us how to buy a burrito at Taco Bell without being taken to the cleaners.

Ok, so are you saying the Fed Act of 1913 nullifies this, can you show me that reference?

We are working hard on this to get to our end goal for CS. We have had spotted access to the equity, but we are working towards full access. Why would you want food from taco bell anyway, that is disgusting. Any ways because of statements made in the Liber Code doing something like that has to do with the receipts, they are securities.

Liber Code : Article 38. Private property, unless forfeited by crimes or by offenses of the owner, can be seized only by way of military necessity, for the support or other benefit of the Army or of the United States. If the owner has not fled, the commanding officer will cause receipts to be given, which may serve the spoliated owner to obtain indemnity.

Indemnity;
That which is given to a person to prevent his suffering damage. 2 McCord, 279. Sometimes it signifies diminution; a tenant who has been interrupted in the enjoyment of his lease may require an indemnity from the lessor, that is, a reduction of his rent.

3. Contracts made for the purpose of indemnifying a person for doing an act for which he could be indicted, or an agreement to, compensate a public officer for doing an act which is forbidden by law, or omitting to do one which the law commands, are absolutely void. But when the agreement with an officer was not to induce him to neglect his duty, but to test a legal right, as to indemnify him for not executing an execution, it was held to be good. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 780.
- 1856 Bouviers Dictionary

Think of " officer " as the trustee for Cesti que vie.

I am trying to help make some connections here for you, but it is difficult if you will not even consider the time we have invested in our beliefs or the fact that we have a right to self determination NOT by a legal sense but by the grace of the one most high himself. We put the natural rights from the creator, above any legal rights here on earth in which we "waive all the benefits thereof".

[David Merrill]

You twisted that into nullify. A new contract option opened up in 1913!

Why would you want food from taco bell anyway, that is disgusting.

I like Taco Bell. Coming from you though...


Excuses, excuses...

[Frederick Burrell]

ummmmm Taco Bell. Now this is starting to get personal. lol. fB

[motla68]

ummmmm Taco Bell. Now this is starting to get personal. lol. fB

I prefer Chipolte Grill myself. But I have to admit I did go try the new tacos at taco bell with the shrimp in them and not bad of a taste, love the cilantro, I can do without the MSG though, detox.. detox.