It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Legal Philosophy & the Meaning of Words - Government as a corporation

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ALightinDarkness
 


Well then, I'm proud to be a "populist shill".

Be sure to quote your legal definitions as they are carting you off to the Halliburton prison camp to be RFIDeed so you can make ultra-cheap consumables for Walmart to sell in China, home of the new middle class - thanks to the CorpGov.




posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 


Your irrational hatred of business and made up conspiracies to fit your narrow worldview has no place in the discussion at hand. Unless you care to cite some court case which disproves that I cannot sue an organization without some sort of legal person status for wrongs against me, take the propaganda else where - I know ATS loves it, but it has no place in this discussion.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ALightinDarkness
 


Actually you have this backwards. The legal entity protects the business owner from being sued personally among other nice benefits like certain tax rights offs and what not...that is if you incorporate. The judicial system protects people and their toasters not the fact that they are incorporated. The fact is people have been getting hosed for a long time and if it wasnt for a lot of laws by a guy named Theodore Roseveldt and a few others who passed these consumer protection laws there would be no recourse for the toaster person.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 11:49 PM
link   
I don't dislike business, just how it exploits for profit and how our Government makes it so easy for them to do it. As I have worked for a major Corporation for over ten years, I think that makes me at least somewhat quailified to have an opinion on the subject.

My original comments were just trying to make a contrary point about how the Government as a Corporation (CorpGov) is generally interpreted on forums, as referenced in your OP. I'm sorry they weren't appreciated. I see now that you really only want to pontificate on how silly and uneducated we all are, so I'll leave you to it.

[edit on 1/7/2008 by kosmicjack]



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 


I was referring specifically to those posts who run around screaming the the government as a corporation is now proof of some sort of heinous conspiracy. I realize the ATS populist crowd can spin it differently to mean something different, and I appreciate you for bringing up that interpretation - but I am referring to the cases where it is brought up to mean something that is completely wrong in a legal sense.

And mybigunit...nope - it works both ways. There is a good reason why corporations protect the people in the business - if they didn't we wouldn't have many businesses. There is no way I would work for government if I knew that I along with other of millions of government workers had our personal assets up for grabs. You'd never be able to convince anyone to work for government, and almost no one would dare work for or run a business either.

[edit on 2-7-2008 by ALightinDarkness]



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ALightinDarkness
 





You show a basic misunderstanding (or your doing it on purpose to spread disinformation) about what a "legal person" actually means. In fact, I already addressed it in the first post. Since your only interested in propaganda and not a discussion, I'll shorten it for you: Legal entities are indeed fictional persons, in that they have no rights but represent something which legal action can be brought against:


Wow... thanks it appears the you are the man on the mountain. I'm afraid it's you that lacks a basic understanding, so get over yourself.

A corporation created under law is regarded by the courts as an artificial person and thus "treated like any other independent person with its rights and liabilities appropriate to itself, and..the motives of those who took part in the promotion of th company are absolutely irrelevent in discussing what those rights and liabilities are Salomon vs Saloman & co [1897] a.c.22 at 30 (h.l)

Artificial persons only apply to statutes as artificial persons are created by man. Natural persons are created by god. Thats why you'll notice that everything thats a pain in you're ass (other than me of course) you've had to apply for and sign for to agree to be bound by the statute, what ever it might be.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Swingarm
 


I find it amusing that you keep trying to argue and in doing so, your agreeing with me. As I've already stated 4 times, the creation of legal persons is for a specific purpose - and it has nothing to do with the conspiracy propaganda you are parroting. Your attempting to act like I've never said legal person entities exist - which is the angle your arguing from - event though I said they do exit, and they exist for good non-conspiracy reason, since the first post.

If your going to go around and stalk me like this, at least make it less obvious that your trolling me.

By the way, your not a pain - your quite helpful. Your showing everyone how wrong the conspiracies you believe in are. Please keep it up.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Wow you completely missed the point of my last post. I'm not going to keep repeating it. You're saying a corp has no rights but they do. there limited to the statutes that they fall under. Thats why people come away from legal experiences thinking they have no rights

In Canada for example the Canadian bill of rights says

Every law of Canada shall unless it is expressly declared by an act of the parlement of canada that it shall operate not withstanding the canadian bill of rights,be so construed and applied as not to abrogate abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgement or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared.

So unless you go inside a statute and you find in prescribed form that it is allowed to infringe on your human rights you can safely assume that the statue does not apply to you because it dos,nt say it's allowed to infringe on your rights.

This is why within statutes you get another name like driver,taxpayer , officer etc these are tied to your capitalized name(you signed). You must establish when the judge asks you if your JOHN DOE you'll want to see the paper he's reading it from and make sure your establish that your the natural person John Doe .

Canadian is similar but I think our bill of rightds protects us a little more than in the US.

[edit on 2-7-2008 by Swingarm]



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Swingarm
 


A corporation has no rights in the context your using them. They have certain legal privileges which are required in order for the court system to function. For example, there is no point in creating a corporation which can be sued if you do not give it the "right" to defend itself legally. They are rights, but in the tradition of conspiracy theorists on this abusing the English language, their "rights" are not the same "rights" I have as a citizen under the Constitution.

This entire "capitalized name" non-sense is more in the same vein of simply made up conspiracy theories. I had a law professor sit on my graduate thesis committee because it dealt with a legal topic (eminent domain), so I got to know him very well. His law degree is from a ivy league law school, and he clerked for a Supreme Court justice. I decided just for fun to show him some of this stuff about capitalization, corporation, etc. - and - after he stopped laughing - he got sad and said it was an example of the most grievous misuse and simply lying about the law hes seen in a while.

The words taxpayer, driver, etc. are used in the law because it concerns people in that context. That's it. Its capitalized to bring attention to the parties the law is addressing, not all laws do. The entire JOHN DOE thing is completely made up.

If it makes you feel better, go around not signing your name and using only little letters. I assure you, your still subject to the law and can still be brought to court. Conspiracy shenanigans won't change that.

[edit on 2-7-2008 by ALightinDarkness]



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 03:36 AM
link   


This entire "capitalized name" non-sense is more in the same vein of simply made up conspiracy theories. I had a law professor sit on my graduate thesis committee because it dealt with a legal topic (eminent domain), so I got to know him very well. His law degree is from a ivy league law school, and he clerked for a Supreme Court justice. I decided just for fun to show him some of this stuff about capitalization, corporation, etc. - and - after he stopped laughing - he got sad and said it was an example of the most grievous misuse and simply lying about the law hes seen in a while.

Thats a nice little story but i'm not intersted in your supposed ivy league freinds or your supposed graduate thesis. Just stick to the facts without painting all the imagry of superiority ,and then quoting what he said(which i suspect is what you said) about the topic were discussing .



The words taxpayer, driver, etc. are used in the law because it concerns people in that context. That's it. Its capitalized to bring attention to the parties the law is addressing, not all laws do. The entire JOHN DOE thing is completely made up.


I'm afraid you need to go and find that ivy league dude, hopfully he's cheered up by now.
Have a disscussion about construction of stuatutes this is your weak area of understanding.
Within statutes words and terms have entirly different meanings than they do outside the statute.You must look at each statute you're dealing with and understand the diffinitions. Very often it's quite the opposite of what you describe. I'm affraid the next sentence is grasping at somthing I'm not following but apparently you have the tone that you've solved it all. Sorry no.

[edit on 2-7-2008 by Swingarm]



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Swingarm
 


I see your deflecting as usual. Where is your evidence? You have nothing but a rant written against someone who was exposed as a conspiracy shill. Show me evidence that the Federal Reserve's Weekly balance sheet is somehow altered such that they actually being paid interest beyond operating costs without ANYONE knowing about it. You have none. Go spread your propaganda elsewhere.

You should a basic ignorance of the law which is astounding. Within statutes words and terms sometimes have different meanings, but not the capitalization. Not to mention words are clearly defined in the I. DEFINITIONS section of each statutes. Since you want to believe this so bad, SHOW ME A STATUTE IN THE LAW where it says that capitalizing your name or using JOHN DOE has any relation to the conspiracy sewage you've been spewing.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by mybigunit
reply to post by ALightinDarkness
 


Actually you have this backwards. The legal entity protects the business owner from being sued personally among other nice benefits like certain tax rights offs and what not...that is if you incorporate.


Actually it protects both the business owner and employees, and the consumer. The business owner and employees are protected because they cannot be personally held responsible for misdeeds committed by the corporation. And the consumer is protected because they have someone to hold accountable since the business owner and employees cannot be targeted.

Here's a thought...why don't physicians just become an LLC to avoid all the malpractice bs? There must be a law against it or something.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Edited by The Idaho Observer
Lawful Foundations
The original U.S. Constitution is a foundational document created between the individual state nations. Proper representatives of the people in each nation state agreed upon it and signed it. The federal government is not only created by it, but is also bound to operate within the guidelines of Constitutional procedures. Any law that originates from the Constitution is lawful. Any purported law that does not originate from it is a fictional law without validity. The true test of any American law is whether it was created according to lawful process or outside of lawful process.
For years we have researched the lawful basis for creating ALL CAPS legal fictions and have concluded that there is no such foundation according to valid authority. But what about those purported “laws” that are not valid and have not originated from constitutional due process?
There's a very simple answer. Such purported laws are really not laws at all.
Executive orders and directives
Executive Orders and Directives are “color of law.” They have the appearance of law and look as if they're laws, but they are not lawful. Rather, they are “laws” based on fictional beginnings and are the basis for further fictional “laws” and other legal fictions. They are “regulated” and “promulgated” by Administrative rules and procedures.
Lincoln establishes EOs
Eighty-five years after the Independence of the united States, seven southern nation States of America walked out of the Second Session of the thirty-sixth Congress on March 27, 1861. In so doing, the Constitutional due process quorum necessary for Congress to vote was lost and Congress was adjourned sine die, or “without day.” This meant that there was no lawful quorum to set a specific day and time to reconvene which dissolved Congress. This dissolution automatically took place because there were no provisions within the Constitution allowing the passage of any Congressional vote without a quorum.
Lincoln's second executive order of April, 1861, called Congress back into session days later, but not under the lawful authority of the Constitution. In his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Military, Lincoln called Congress into session under authority of Martial Law. Since April of 1861, “Congress” has not met based on lawful process. Our current “Congress” is based on a legal fiction not much different than a proper name written in all caps.
Legal fiction “laws”, such as the Reconstruction Acts and the implementation of the Lieber Code, were soon instituted by Lincoln and thus became the basis for our current “laws.” Every purported “Act” in effect today is based on legal fiction, not lawful due process.
The various bankruptcies
The legally created fiction called the UNITED STATES is bankrupt and holds no lawful Constitutionally mandated silver or gold coin to back up or pay their debts. Privately held and federally held gold coins and bullion in America were seized by Executive Order of April 5, 1933 and paid to the creditor, the private Federal Reserve Bank Corporation (FRB) under the terms of bankruptcy.
Congress -- still meeting under Executive Order authority -- confirmed this bankruptcy through the Joint Resolution to Suspend The Gold Standard And Abrogate The Gold Clause, June 5, 1933 in H.J. Res. 192, 73rd Congress, 1st session, Public Law 73-10. Within this 1933 Public Law, it states in part:
“...every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby, is declared to be against public policy.”
In 1950, the corporate U.S. declared bankruptcy a second time, whereby the Secretary of Treasury was appointed as “Receiver” of the bankruptcy in Reorganization Plan No. 26, Title 5 USC 903, Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, page 5967.
The only asset the UNITED STATES has, in order to pay their bankruptcy debt since 1933, is the people themselves. If the UNITED STATES openly declared this, the people would never allow their labors and futures to be collateral to this bankruptcy debt. Consequently, they legally pledge the future labor and tax revenues of Americans, by and through the ALL CAPS fictional legal persons they have created, as collateral for credit to pay daily operational costs and the ever increasing debt.
ALL CAPS legal person v. the lawful being
Just who is the full caps person, i.e. JOHN JAMES SMITH? He's the legal fiction the government created to take the place of the real being, i.e. John James Smith. The lawful name of birthright has been substituted by a legal fiction created by the government. If the lawful Christian name answers as the legal person, the two are recognized as being one and the same. However, if the lawful being refuses to accept the legal fiction, the two are separated. Therein lies the simple solution: Refusal by the lawful person to accept or answer for the legal person.
How did this happen? A result of the federal government bankruptcies was their creation of a legal fiction known as THE UNITED STATES as a part of their legal reorganization. Each STATE was also converted to their respective fictional legal person, i.e. THE STATE OF IDAHO. Legal fictions can create further legal fictions, such as corporations or any other fictional person easily identified by being written with ALL CAPS.
All areas of government, including the purported courts of law, are currently authorized by, and operating as, legally created fictions. For example, the FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO or the U.S. DISTRICT COURT can only recognize other legal persons. This is why your lawful name is never entered in their records. It has been substituted with the legal person written with full caps. Jurisdiction in such legal fiction courts is only with other legal fictions. The only jurisdiction a lawful being can enter into is a lawful constitutional court.
(Note: While it does seem to be true the legal fiction governments and their legal fiction courts have no lawful jurisdiction over natural persons, they gladly use police power to arrest, assault and imprison natural persons until they acquiesce to their fictional authority. Justice, therefore, has nothing to do with what is right and wrong under the law, it is dominance and submission; one must either bow to the will of the state or be subject to its wrath).
The “catch 22” is that lawful courts no longer exist. Only “legal” courts are available to Americans.
ALL CAPs intent revealed
The purpose and reason for the government use of proper names written in ALL CAPS is now revealed. The only way to counter this is for lawful Americans to stop accepting the use of the substituted legal fiction the STATE has given them. Most documents now issued by government addresses the person written in ALL CAPS. Lawful Americans must insist that they are not that legal fiction and refuse to accept it. By joining together and doing so from the local level, each community will begin to upset the legal order. Lawful Americans must begin to demand lawful government and lawful courts. The legal fictions can only come to an end when the people refuse to use or recognize them.
The only way to restore lawful government in America is for the people to refuse the privileges of the legal government now unlawfully in place. We've all been duped. The use of full caps to write a proper name is absolutely no mistake.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Swingarm
 


I find it amusing that you keep copying and pasting the same conspiracy propaganda. And I LOVE how you tried to quote from something which appears to be the name of a newspaper, but which it turns out is a disinformation CT propaganda website. By the way, why is it you can't actually comment on the facts here, but keep copying and pasting?

As always, the problem is its not based on anything. There is no "legal fiction" of THE UNITED STATES, nor does your copy and paste job prove it. The reference to legal entities in the law refers to their corporations or to individuals, which in the case of corporations we have already established are required for the efficient and effective processing of lawsuits.

The own definitions drug up by your own conspiracy cite show what legal fiction actually is: it is the assumption of something not true in order to efficiently carry out justice. It is not something that is simply made up. As I have already established, the corporation is a legal person - which it must be in order to be sued. The legal fiction is treating the corporation as a person, even though we know the corporation is not a physical being. This is the legal fiction, that an entity is treated like an actual person in order for it to be name a party in court due to tradition. That's it. Not some woo-woo conspiracy theory. Actual physical people are not legal fictions, because they are already persons, and can already be named in court.

The problem with the propaganda you have posted is that the US and every other legal entity cited was created before 1933, and the laws passed regarding 1933 itself never create another corporation. In fact, legal tradition for some time has had ALL CAPS simply meaning an entity was being addressed. Its EASIER TO RECOGNIZE WHERE YOU OR YOUR ORGANIZATION ARE TALKED ABOUT in LEGAL DOCUMENTS when your name or the name of the organization IS PUT IN CAPS.

As usual, the conspiracy theorists ran around in circles creating conspiracies out of something which is very simple to understand.

[edit on 3-7-2008 by ALightinDarkness]



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Swingarm
 


OK, you're relatively new to ATS so I want to give you some friendly advice. Paragraphs are your friend. If someone gave you a book with no paragraphs, no sections, and no chapters, but just words running on one after another, would you read it?

Well no one is going to read your posts when they look like that. The first one people might try to struggle through. The second one they might skim. All subsequent ones people will just pass over.

It's easy to do. Just press 'Enter' twice after you end a sentence and voila it's a new paragraph. The same goes for quotes. Use the quote buttons. They are also your friends.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   
I love how swing also gets away with direct copy and paste jobs from other sources, without properly citing it OR adding to the posts - both of which are against the rules. His violations have been going on for days - it is becoming clear the moderators of this particular form are perfectly willing to overlook such "discretions" - it certainly gives the impression of overt bias

I know everyone is busy, but more than enough time has elapsed to get moderator attention and I even reported the more obvious violations.


[edit on 3-7-2008 by ALightinDarkness]



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness

And mybigunit...nope - it works both ways. There is a good reason why corporations protect the people in the business - if they didn't we wouldn't have many businesses. There is no way I would work for government if I knew that I along with other of millions of government workers had our personal assets up for grabs. You'd never be able to convince anyone to work for government, and almost no one would dare work for or run a business either.

[edit on 2-7-2008 by ALightinDarkness]


Not arguing with you there I think the owners personal assets should be protected (remember I own my own company) alls Im saying is the incorporation of businesses are to protect the owner more so than the consumer. The courts are there to protect the consumer and the legislative branches. Keep in mind before a lot of consumer protection laws were passed by Teddy and what not people did not have recourse and got stuck with a lot of crap that was fed to them hence thats why the laws were passed. I agree with you though I wouldnt be in business if I knew my butt wasnt protected in case of some frivolous law suit or whatever.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 


See, even we can agree on something.


This surely must be a sign the end is near.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by kosmicjack
"Well, on the intarwebz, CorpGov is slang for the merging interests/entity of our Government and Corporations hell bent on profits at any cost. The Government seems intent on executing the Will of Corporations over the Will of it's tax paying Citizens."

If the Government is a corporation, and corporations are "hell bent on profits at any cost," our government is one lousy corporation....trillion dollar deficits...leveraged/mortgaged to the hilt..... Can we bring a shareholder suit against the United States board of directors?




top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join