|
Real0ne -> RE: Is the United States government Legitimate? (10/15/2010 3:11:38 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
quote:
Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determination of the united States in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
what is a state? A state is a body politic within given boundaries.
Does the state own my property that I bought free and clear and with land patent? NO
If I am not party to THEIR body politic -or yours if you are in their club then WTF gives them the authority to have either in personam or in rem jurisdiction over me or my property?
quote:
The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union (OF the STATES) was the first constitution of the United States of America.[5]
In September 1786, commissioners from five states met in the Annapolis Convention to discuss adjustments to the Articles of Confederation that would improve commerce. They invited state representatives to convene in Philadelphia to discuss improvements to the federal government. After debate, the Congress of the Confederation endorsed the plan to revise the Articles of Confederation on February 21, 1787. Twelve states, Rhode Island being the only exception, accepted this invitation and sent delegates to convene in May 1787. The resolution calling the Convention specified that its purpose was to propose amendments to the Articles, but through discussion and debate it became clear by mid-June that, rather than amend the existing Articles, the Convention decided to propose a rewritten Constitution. The Constitutional Convention voted to keep the debates secret, so that the delegates could speak freely. They also decided to draft a new fundamental government design. Despite Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation stating that the union created under the Articles was "perpetual" and that any alteration must be "agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State," Article VII of the proposed constitution stipulated that only nine of the thirteen states would have to ratify for the new government to go into effect (for the participating states). Current knowledge of the drafting and construction of the United States Constitution comes primarily from the diaries left by James Madison, who kept a complete record of the proceedings at the Constitutional Convention. Source
So they can simply make the rules up as they go.... NO need for input from any low life "citizen".
Now, first of all, to counter Real's assertion that the Articles of Confederation were not legally or legitimately disposed of, all one has to do is read the facts.
The representatives to the Annapolis convention had the authority granted them by the states that sent them to make changes to the Articles Of Confederation, you cant dispute that, to try and do so is evidence of supreme stupidity.
Creating a new constitution is not making changes it is creating a NEW constitution.
His continued assertion that we are somehow still tied to Great Britain is based on some delusional interpretation of the treaty of Paris and the treaty that ended the war of 1812.
What he fails to realize or completely ignores is the simple truth that IF we were still part of the British government, we sure the fuck would not be holding elections. Colonial officials are appointed.
I told you in a previous thread that the king signed off as in relenquished political jurisdiction as you can see from said document.
Signing off jurisdiction is a grant to the states to govern as they see fit now politically under the laws of nations with only restrictions to that and treaties.
Notice the word GRANT....the king did all the dictating here just like japan after their defeat did with MacArthur. Its a know fact that defeated nations taken in battle dictate terms of the treaty....LOL
The major flaws in his arguments are the simple fact that governments are not corporate entities, how he comes to that conclusion is anyone's guess.
Do tell?
quote:
CORPORATION: A body, consisting of one or more natural persons, established by law, usually for some specific purpose, and continued by a succession of' members. "An artificial being created by law and composed of individuals who subsist as a body politic under a special denomination with the capacity of perpetual succession and of acting within the scope of its charter as a natural person." Fietsam v. Hay, 122 111. 293.
By fiction it is partly a person and partly a citizen, yet it has not the inalienable rights of a natural person; Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U. S. 200, 24 Sup. Ct. 436, 48 L. Ed. 679.
A corporation aggregate is a collection of individuals united in one body by such a grant of privileges as secures succession of members without changing the identity of the body and constitutes the members for the time being one artificial person or legal being capable of transacting the corporate business like a natural person. Bronson, J., People v. Assessors of Village of Watertown, 1 Hill (N. Y.) 620.
For a long time the prevailing theory on the Continent ot Europe of the true nature of corporate bodies was that the personality to a corporation was a mere legal Action, and its rights derived in every case from a special creation by the state. But of late years writers of considerable authority have taken the view that the legal existence or personality of a corporation, though limited In various ways, is quite as real as that of an individual; Pollock, First Book of Jurlspr. 113, where various authorities are referred to, and the author expresses his belief that the latter view is sounder. The corporation in England was the joint result of certain groups In ecclesiastical life and certain other groups active In temporal affairs. For centuries the development of each was wholly Independent of tbe other. The boroughs first began to secure from the king franchises to hold their own courts, to their own customs and freedom from toll. <- TAX borough had two organizations—gild and governmental. They were connected, but not identical. The franchise* were in the form of a grant from the king and were made to the burgesses. No legal person was created, but the burgesses died and their privileges were continued to their successors. When individual inhabitants of the borough offended the king by their acts, he took away the franchise of the borough as a punishment, which punishment fell on the community. Once in such a case the Londoners prayed that only the guilty might be punished; Riley, Chronicles 84. The king treated the burgesses as a group and the burgesses in respect to their property acted as a group. The same idea developed in ecclesiastical life. Pot wholly different reasons, religious groups were formed. The basic doctrines of the Christian church require co-operation and also continuity of thought and effort. Monasteries, convents and chapters were the result It became evident that this indefinite something produced by the association of several should be given a name and Its status established. There was much blind groping after the nature of this indefinite something. For a time the idea naturally suggested by the analogy of the human body was applied to these groups. The chief officer, as the mayor or the bishop, was the head and the members were the arms, legs, etc. This was called the anthropomorphic theory and for a long time obscured the true corporate idea; 1 Poll. & Maltl. (2d ed.) 491, and citations of the year books there given: 19 Harv. L. Rev. 350. Finally, however, the oneness of these groups was given a definite recognition, not as a real, but as an ideal or legal person. The conception* of an ideal person having legal rights and duties was borrowed directly from the early English theory as to church ownership. In very early times, several centuries at least before the reign of Edward I., there were in England what were vaguely known as church lands. At first the land was given direct to God. Sometimes It was given to a particular saint, who was supposed to guard and protect it. Little by little, the saint and the buildings became merged in each other and the church Itself was thought to be the property owner. The functions of ownership were necessarily performed by human beings—by the clergy—and the theory was naturally extended to cases where there was only one cleric Thus was introduced the corporation sole, characterized as "that unhappy freak of English law" ; 1 Poll. & Maitl. 488. In ecclesiastical affairs, the corporation aggregate was almost resolved into a mere collection of corporations sole; id. 507. See infra. It was not until about the middle of the 15th century that it was settled as a matter of positive law that the corporation must be created by the sovereign power, which rule arose simply from considerations of political expediency. Recognizing that boroughs, organized communities and gilds might become dangerous, the king made them a source of revenue by selling the privilege to exist. (just like property and income taxes huh???)
In 1440 the first municipal charter was granted. The mayor, burgesses and their successors, mayors and burgesses of the town of Klngston-upon-Hull, were incorporated Bo as to form "one perpetual corporate commonalty." 19 Harv. L. Rev. 350. "What we call a corporation was first called 'un corps; or a body, whence our 'body politic,' or 'body corporate'; or 'un gros' or something that had an existence in Itself, apart from its constituents. Thus there was gradually evolved the idea of an abstract artificial individuality, composed of members for the time being, to be succeeded by others after them, but continuing after their death. This became the persona flcta of a later time." A. M. Baton in 1902 Amer. Bar Assoc. Repts. 320. Referring to the earlier historical days, the same author says, (p. 322): "There was no intention on either part to form a corporation, indeed neither knew what a corporation was; for the name did not exist, but the thing itself was being gradually evolved."
For the history of corporations before 1800, see Wllliston, 2 Harv. L. Rev. 149 (3 Sel. Essays In Anglo-Amer. L. H. 195); Baldwin, History of Private Corp., 3 Sel. Essays in Anglo-Amer. L. H. 236.
For centuries the leading case on corporations in England was the case of Sutton's Hospital. 10 Co. 1 (1612), where the king, on the petition of Sutton, had granted a charter to a hospital. Sutton conveyed land to such corporation. Against the contention of the heir that there was no corporation and that the conveyance was void, it was held that both the Incorporation and the deed were valid and that the Incorporation of the persons might precede the foundation of the hospital; 21 Harv. L. Rev. 305. It was considered at that time that corporations aggregate could not commit treason, nor be outlawed nor excommunicated, for they have no souls.
Neither can they appear in person, but by attorney ; they cannot do fealty, for an invisible body can neither be in person nor swear; 10 Coke 32 b. Blackstone said it can neither maintain nor be defendant to an action of battery or such like personal Injuries, for a corporation can neither beat, nor be beaten, in its body politic; 1 Bla. Com. 476. It could not be executor or administrator or perform any personal duties, for It could not take an oath for the due execution of the office; id. The fiction that a corporation can do nothing but by an attorney, that it was an artificial being, guarded by the body of associates forming it, led to the theory that its administrative officers could exercise only a delegated authority; 21 Harv. L. Rev. 535. It is said that under the pressure of modern analysis this fiction tends to yield to more rational Ideas, and corporate action is perceived more truly as simple group action; id. A corporation represents the most advanced attainment of the group Idea; 19 id. 350. The first business corporate charter in the United States was in 1768: "The Philadelphia Contrlbutionshlp for Insuring Houses from Loss by Fire." Aggregate corporations are those which are composed of two or more members at the same time. Civil corporations are those which are created to facilitate the transaction of business. Ecclesiastical corporations are those which are created to secure the public worship of God. Eleemosynary corporations are those which are created for the purposes of charities, such as schools, hospitals, and the like. Lay corporations are those which exist for secular purposes. Municipal corporations are those created for the purpose of administering some portion of the government In a political subdivision of the state, as a city, county, etc. Private corporations are those which are created wholly or in part, for purposes of private emolument Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 068, 4 L. Ed. 629; Bank of United States v. Bank, 9 Wheat (U. S.) 907, 6 L. Ed. 244.
Public corporations are those which are exclusively instruments of the public Interest
Corporations sole are those which by law consist of but one member at any one time, as a bishop in England. But see infra; also supra. In the Dartmouth College Case, 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 666, 4 L. Ed. 629, Mr. Justice Story defined the various kinds of corporations as follows: "An aggregate corporation at common law Is a collection of individuals united into one collective body, under a special name, and possessing certain immunities, privileges, and capacities In Its collective character, which do not belong to the natural persons composing It ... A great variety of these corporations exist In every country governed by the common law; . . . some of these corporations are, from the particular purposes to which they are devoted, denominated spiritual, and some lay; and the latter are again divided Into civil and eleemosynary corporations. Eleemosynary corporations are such as are constituted for the perpetual distribution of the free alms and bounty of the founder. . . . In this class are ranked hospitals, and colleges, etc. Another division of corporations is into public and private. Public corporations are generally esteemed such as exist for public and political purposes only, such as towns, cities, etc. Strictly speaking, public corporations are such only as are founded by the government for public purposes, where the whole interests belong also to the government If, therefore, the foundation be private, though under the charter of the Government the corporation is private. . . . NEVER KNEW THERE WAS A PRIVATE SIDE OF GUBMINT DIDJA? For instance, a bank created by the Government for its own uses, whose stock Is exclusively owned by the government is, In the strictest sense, a public corporation. So a hospital created and endowed by the government for general charity. But a bank, whose stock is owned by private persons, is a private corporation. . . . The same doctrine may be affirmed of Insurance, canal, bridge, and turnpike companies. In all these cases, the uses may, in a certain sense, be called public, but the corporations are private. . . . This reasoning applies In its full force to eleemosynary corporations. . . . This is the unequivocal doctrine of the authorities; and cannot be shaken but by undermining the most solid foundations of the common law." Kent divides corporations Into ecclesiastical and lay, and lay corporations into eleemosynary and civil; 2 Kent 274. , It has been held that a public corporation la one that cannot carry out the purposes of Its organization without certain rights under its charter from the commonwealth, and that mere private corporations are those that need no franchise from the state to carry out such purposes; Allegheny Co. v. Diamond Market 123 Pa. 164, 16 AO. 619. But Judge Thompson doubts as to whether these divisions promote clear conceptions of the law; 1 Thomp. Corp. J 22; he considers that a more practical conception would divide them into three classes:
public municipal corporations, to promote the public interest;
corporations technically private but of quasi public character, such as railroads etc.; and corporaUons
strictly private; id. | 37.
The essence of a corporation consists "in a capacity
(1) to have perpetual succession In a special and In an artificial form;
Yep sounds like the United States of America United States, New York et al
(2) to take and grant property, contract obligations, sue and be sued by its corporate name as an Individual;
Yep sounds like the United States of America United States, New York et al (3),to receive and enjoy in common grants of privileges and immunities; Thomas v. Dak in, 22 Wend. (N. Y.) 71.Yep sounds like the United States of America United States, New York et al By both the civil and the common law, the sovereign authority only can create a corporation,—a corporation by prescription, or so old that the license or charter which created it is lost being presumed, from the long-continued exercise of corporate powers, to have been entitled to them by sovereign grant In England, corporations are created by royal charter or parliamentary act; in the United States, by legislative act of any state, or of the congress of the United States,—congress having power to create a corporation, as, for instance, a national bank when such a body is an appropriate instrument for the exercise of its constitutional powers; McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 424, 4 U Ed. 579.
Yep sounds like the creation of the United States of America, United States, New York et al
In many or most of the states general acts have been passed for the creation of certain classes of some corporations. And some state constitutions have taken from the legislature the power to create them by special act
All corporations, of whatever kind, are moulded and controlled, both as to what they may do and the manner in which they may do it, by their charters or acts of incorporation, (constitution and from that the us code et al) which to them are the laws of their being, which they can neither dispense with nor alter. (Except by Sovereign intervention or by amendment process) Subject, however, to such limitations as these, or such as general statute or constitutional law, may impose, every corporation aggregate has, by virtue of incorporation and as incidental thereto, first, the power of perpetual succession, Including the admission, and, except in the case of mere stock corporations, the removal for cause, of members; second, the power to sue and be sued, to grant and to receive grants, and to do all acts which It may do nt all, In Its corporate name; third, to purchase, receive, and to hold lands and other property, and to transmit them in succession; fourth, to have a common seal, and to break, alter, and renew It at pleasure; and, fifth, to make by-laws for its government, so that they be consistent with its charter and with law. It may, within the limits of its charter or act of incorporation express or implied, lawfully do all acts and enter Into all contracts that a natural person may do or enter into, so that the same be appropriate as means to the end for which the corporation was created. It is not obliged to use all Its powers unless Its charter especially so requires; Illinois Trust & Savings Bank v. Doud, 105 Fed. 123, 44 C. C. A. 389, 52 L. R. A. 481. A 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 act is 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 ascertain if it has exceeded its powers; Wilson v. U. S., 221 D. S. 382, 31 Sup. Ct 538, 55 L. Ed. 771, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 558. A corporation of one state may be made a corporation of another state in regard to property and acts within its territorial jurisdiction; Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Wheeler, 1 Black (U. S.) 286, 17 L. Ed. 130; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Harris, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 65, 20 L. Ed. 354; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Whltton, 13 Wall. (U. S.) 270, 20 L. Ed. 571; St. Louis R. Co. T. Vance, 96 U. S. 450, 24 L. Ed. 752; Clark v. Barnard, 108 U. S. 436, 2 Sup. Ct 878, 27 L. Ed. 780; Martin v. R Co., 151 U. S. 673, 14 Sup. Ct 533, 38 L. Ed. 311; Louisville, N. A. & C. R Co. v. Trust Co., 174 U. S. 552, 19 Sup. Ct. 817, 43 L. Ed. 1081; Mackay v. R Co., 82 Com. 73, 72 Atl. 583, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 768; but the mere grant of privileges and powers to it as an existing corporation, without more, does not confer the power usually exercised over corporations by the state or by the legislature. The language used must imply creation or adoption; Pennsylvania R Co. v. R. Co., 118 U. S. 290, 6 Sup. Ct 1094, 30 L. Ed. 83; Goodlett v. R. R, 122 U. S. 391, 7 Sup. Ct 1254, 30 L. Ed. 1230; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. James, 161 U. S. 545, 16 Sup. Ct 621, 40 L. Ed. 802. Where a corporation is Incorporated simultaneously in several states, it exists in each state; Pinney v. Nelson, 183 U. S. 149, 22 Sup. Ct 52, 46 L. Ed. 125. Where it is sued in one of such states it cannot escape the jurisdiction thereof and remove the cause to the federal court; Patch v. R. Co., 207 U. S. 277, 28 Sup. Ct. 80, 52 L Ed. 204, 12 Ann. Cas. 518, distinguishing Southern R. Co. v. Allison, 190 U. S. 326, 23 Sup. Ct 713, 47 L. Ed. 1078. Where several corporations, each of a different state, are so consolidated by the co-operating legislation of those states as to assume a new corporate form and name, the consolidated corporation Is, in each of those states, a corporation of such state; Patch v. R Co., 207 D. S. 277, 28 Sup. Ct. 80, 52 L. Ed. 204, 12 Ann. Cas. 518. See Merger. Where property Is Involved, a corporation is regarded as a person separate and distinct from its stockholders, or any or all of them; Home Fire Ins. Co. v. Barber, 67 Neb. 644, 93 N. W. 1024, 60 L. R A. 927, 108 Am. St. Rep. 716, per Pound, Com'r. The entirely separate identity of the rights and remedies of a corporation itself and the individual shareholders is settled; Big Creek Gap Coal & Iron Co. v. Trust Co., 127 Fed. 626, 62 C. C. A. 351; Bronson v. R Co., 2 Wall. (U. 8.) 283, If L. Ed. 725; Davenport v. Dows, 18 Wall. 626, 21 L. Ed. 938; Church v. R. Co., 78 Fed. 526; Forbes v. R Co., Fed. Cas. No. 4,926. But it is held that while a corporation Is ordinarily considered a legal entity, yet it may, in tbe interest of justice, be considered as an association of persons; and where one corporation is organized and owned by the stockholders and officers of another, they may be treated as identical; U. S. v. Transit Co., 142 Fed. 247. Its residence is fixed by artificial conditions, such as the location of Its principal office, or (If a foreign corporation) the personal residence of its duly appointed attorney in fact on whom service is to be made in a state where it is registered as a foreign corporation; Lemon v. Glass Co., 199 Fed. 927. A corporation having stockholders is organized when the first meeting has been called, the act of Incorporation accepted, officers elected, and by-laws providing for future meetings adopted, within the meaning of a statute providing that incorporators and subscribers shall hold the franchise until the corporation is organized; Roosevelt v. Hamblin, 199 Mass. 127, 85 N. E. 98, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 748; or when the officers provided for in the law of its being have been appointed and taken upon themselves the burden of their offices; Com. v. Mann Co., 150 Pa. 64, 24 Atl. 601; Walton v. Oliver, 49 Kan. 107, 30 Pac. 172, 33 Am. St Rep. 355. It has been held not to be organized where it had not recorded a certificate of complete organization ; Loverin v. McLaughlin, 161 111. 417, 44 N. E. 99; North Chicago Electric Ry. Co. v. Peuser, 190 111. 67, 60 N. E. 78; or filed its articles of incorporation; Capps v. Prospecting Co., 40 Neb. 470, 58 N. W. 956, 24 L. R. A 259, 42 Am. St Rep. 677; or its certificate that the requisite capital stock had been deposited ; Gent v. Ins. Co., 107 111. 652. In civil cases a corporation is liable for the malice of its officers and servants; [1900] 1 Q. B. 22; [1904] A. C. 423. Ordinarily in England it cannot be prosecuted for a crime; but it may be for a misdemeanor, which is merely a civil wrong; (e. g.) for breaches of the Food and Drug Act; Odger, C. L. 1405. In the United States It may be indicted for crime, but not for every species; 5 Thomps. Cap. § 6418. It may be for a criminal libel; Brennan v. Tracy, 2 Mo. App. 540 (dictum) ; for keeping a disorderly house; State v. Agricultural Soc., 54 N. J. L. 260, 23 AtL 680; for obstructed public navigation by not constructing a draw bridge; Com. v. Proprietors of New Bedford Bridge, 2 Gray (Mass.) 339; for a public nuisance; State v. City of Portland, 74 Me. 208, 43 Am. Rep. 586; Delaware Division Canal Co. v. Com., 60 Pa. 367, 100 Am. Dec. 570; for failure to perform public duties (as of a municipality falling to keep highways in repair) ; State v. Town of Murfreesboro, 11 Humph. (Tenn.) 217; for usury; State v. Bank, 2 S. D. 538, 51 N. W. 337; for conspiracy to aid a lynching mob; Rogers v. R, Co., 194 Fed. 65, 114 C. C. A. 85; and of course for offences under modern Industrial statutes. It Is held that It can be indicted only when the legislation has so provided; State v. Hotel Co., 42 Ind. App. 282, 85 N. E. 724. The definition at the beginning of this title of a corporation sole is the one usually Riven in the books. It is said, in England, to include the Crown, all bishops, rectors, vicars and the like; 3 Steph. Com. 15 ed. 2. So of the supervisor of a town; Jansen v. Ostrander, 1 Cow. (N. Y.) 670; the governor of a state; Governor v. Allen, 8 Humphr. (Tenn.) 176. It has been defined as a "term established by usage indicating a person some of whose rights and liabilities are permitted by' law to pa>s to his successors in a particular office, rather than to his heirs, executors or administrators. Such a corporation was unknown in the civil law?* 21 Harv. L. Rev. 306. But the conception has been disapproved by modern authors. Thus, Sir F. Pollock (note to Maine, Anc. Law 226) says: "Our English category of corporations sole is not only, as Maine calls it, a fiction, but modern, anomalous, and of no practical use. When a parson or other solely corporate office-holder dies, there is no one to act for the corporation until a successor is appointed, and when appointed, that successor can do nothing which he could not do without being called a corporation sole As for the King, <- Political title, or 'the Crown,' being a corporation sole, (being distinguished from the corporation known as the crown, its more of a trust in its nature however imo) the language of our books appears to be nothing but a clumsy and, after all, Ineffective device to avoid openly personifying the state. . . . The whole thing seems to have arisen from the technical difficulty of making grants to a parson and his successors after the practice of making them to God and the patron saint had been discontinued. . . . All this we may now think makes for historical curiosity rather than philosophical edification." "A bishop is not a corporation sole"; per Strong, J., in Kain v. Gibboney, 101 V. S. 362, 25 L. Ed. 813, referring to a Roman Catholic bishop. See Maitland, Corporation Sole (16 L. Q. R. 335); The Crown as a Corporation (17 id. 131). Judge Thompson has said (Corp. vol. 1, | 8) that the conception of a corporation sole Is "passing out of American law."
There is a major difference between the Magna Carta and the constitution and the articles of incorporation forming a business entity, no matter what he has to say on the topic.
Dood you are so fucking easy, always trying to sneak in wrong and incorrect qualifiers to try and get some traction from bullshit! Do that with the armatures you might have better luck...... Nice try you failed.
I tend to agree with otter on Realone's ability and intellectual capacity.
Catch all your BS with both brains tied behind my head....
|
|
|
|
