Video: Judge Admits That The Court Is A Common Law Court - Are Freemen Correct?

reply to post by Josephus23


Would you clear up something for me? I've looked up the Act of 1801 that you've mentioned, and, for the life of me, I can't find any thing in that Act that creates any new corporation, let alone a foreign one.

You must be familiar with it, could you tell me where the incorporation provision is found? Thanks in advance.

Act of 1801

I've now looked at the 1871 act and that one merges the various municipal corporations (commonly called cities or towns) into one new town, Washington. A town or a city isn't a business corporation, and it's not a foreign corporation. I'm confused here as well.

reply to post by duality90

Do you mind me asking where you believe that the 'common law' is defined as the sole law of the united states in the constitution? Because the constitution is pretty explicit in the law-making powers of the legislature. Article 3, s.2 actually explicitly states that the judiciary's power extends to the "Laws of the United States" i.e. laws passed by the federal legislature.

The constitution only recognizes Common law and Admiralty jurisdiction as stated in Article III. If there are any other jurisdictions then show me where they are authorized and their rules of procedure in the courts?

Article 1, s.7 US Constution: Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law.

That is why federal statutes are law. Plain and simple. How yourself and other readers continually decide for yourselves that they are not, I don't know.

Read the 9th and 10th amendments as Josephus23 so succinctly pointed out. Congress can only pass bills within their scope of authority. If congress passed a bill that said it was ok for congressmen to rape the wives of the citizens at will with no recourse from the citizens would you consider that to be law? According to your logic you would.

Hopefully that illustrates the point that not every bill congress passes is automatically binding law, and if it is outside their scope it is not law and does not apply to the people. Because as extreme as my example is to illustrate the point that is exactly what congress does except it rapes us of our rights, wealth, and property, with the myriads of unlawful statutes they enact outside their scope of authority. Attorneys, government agents, and police facilitate that rape through ignorance, coercion, force and fear!

You tell a blatant lie when you say that judicial review is in the United States constitution - the power is implied, but it is not expressly stated in the constitution, hence why the Supreme Court decided that that power was within its bounds.

The constitution is the law or standard by which the Judicial and other branches must operate, it is obvious they must review any law against the standard they are bound by.

reply to post by duality90


Oh brother. You sound exactly like me just after I left law school. Its uncanny actually. I don't need to weigh in too much in this thread because a few things are going to happen to you in the next few years. They might not happen in the same order as they did with me, but it WILL happen.

1) You will start to feel "uneasy" in your profession.
2) Your emotions will come into play as you start to dwell on the lives you have ruined.
3) You will question yourself.
4) You will question your education.
5) You will start opening your mind to the possibility that maybe, just maybe you have been taught only a small portion of legal expertise solely to keep you ignorant.
6) You will get slapped around a court room HARD by one of these "Freemen" that are no longer arguing and wasting their time on the internet talking about the movement but have learned the truth and now act upon it.
7) Apology?

You know just as well as I do you are arguing the merits/nuances of the legal system and not THE LAW.

Government shills are the first to tell us that if we do not like the current actions being done by them to stand up and do something about it, as *we* are the government. Government can only act and be given power when they represent the person. To represent someone you require the consent of said person. Consent can be given and it can be taken away. A decision that can be made at anytime, anywhere for any reason.

Peace.

-Lightrule

Congress can only pass bills within their scope of authority. If congress passed a bill that said it was ok for congressmen to rape the wives of the citizens at will with no recourse from the citizens would you consider that to be law? According to your logic you would.

Hopefully that illustrates the point that not every bill congress passes is automatically binding law, and if it is outside their scope it is not law and does not apply to the people.

Well, as unbelievable as it seems, for our purposes of discussion, a bill passed by both houses and signed IS law. No matter how crazy. This can be prevented by the executive branch by veto. If they both approve, it IS law until ruled unconstitutional by a court.

You tell a blatant lie when you say that judicial review is in the United States constitution - the power is implied, but it is not expressly stated in the constitution, hence why the Supreme Court decided that that power was within its bounds.

While the principal of judicial review is not express in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is a Constitutional power that the courts have. It is, in effect, part of the Constitution. There may be a misunderstanding here, but there is no reason to call it a blatant lie. It isn't.

The constitution is the law or standard by which the Judicial and other branches must operate, it is obvious they must review any law against the standard they are bound by.

That's not exactly how I would put it. Remember that our Constitution is more than the words on the original document. It includes amendmends and decisions of the Supreme Court on Constitutional matters. Congressmen aren't expected to know the intricacies of Constitutional Law, and even the Justices have different opinions. It is impractical to insist that every law and regulation will always be found Constitutional. Indeed what's Constitutional has changed over time.

Originally posted by Lightrule
reply to post by duality90

 

Oh brother. You sound exactly like me just after I left law school. Its uncanny actually. I don't need to weigh in too much in this thread because a few things are going to happen to you in the next few years. They might not happen in the same order as they did with me, but it WILL happen.

1) You will start to feel "uneasy" in your profession.
2) Your emotions will come into play as you start to dwell on the lives you have ruined.
3) You will question yourself.
4) You will question your education.
5) You will start opening your mind to the possibility that maybe, just maybe you have been taught only a small portion of legal expertise solely to keep you ignorant.
6) You will get slapped around a court room HARD by one of these "Freemen" that are no longer arguing and wasting their time on the internet talking about the movement but have learned the truth and now act upon it.
7) Apology?

You know just as well as I do you are arguing the merits/nuances of the legal system and not THE LAW.

Government shills are the first to tell us that if we do not like the current actions being done by them to stand up and do something about it, as *we* are the government. Government can only act and be given power when they represent the person. To represent someone you require the consent of said person. Consent can be given and it can be taken away. A decision that can be made at anytime, anywhere for any reason.

Peace.

-Lightrule

I highly doubt the freemen will start to win any of their cases. Despite the youtube videos shown at the beginning of the thread, there hasn't really been any evidence adduced that any of these arguments actually carry any legal weight that would win an argument in a freeman's favour in court.

You are quite correct in your assertion that consent can be revoked at any time. What that idea of 'immediate revocation' fails to take account of however is the fact that, in case of anything short of a full-blown revolution, the only means by which the electorate can show their disapproval or revocation of consent to be governed/represented by said person is to vote them out at the next election. Some would say that that is not ideal and effectively protects elected representative from public scrutiny, but if we were to do it any other way, the system would simple cease to work. Any system of representative government which would demand that said representative be recalled or removed from office unless he commands 100% approval is a dream, and could never be a reality. Even the most popular representatives never command that sort of approval/consent from their constituents.

Edit: Incidentally, poster, where did you complete your legal studies and in what area of the law did you work? I'm not being hostile, just genuinely curious haha. Please humor me!

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by duality90

 

Do you mind me asking where you believe that the 'common law' is defined as the sole law of the united states in the constitution? Because the constitution is pretty explicit in the law-making powers of the legislature. Article 3, s.2 actually explicitly states that the judiciary's power extends to the "Laws of the United States" i.e. laws passed by the federal legislature.

The constitution only recognizes Common law and Admiralty jurisdiction as stated in Article III. If there are any other jurisdictions then show me where they are authorized and their rules of procedure in the courts?

Article 1, s.7 US Constution: Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law.

That is why federal statutes are law. Plain and simple. How yourself and other readers continually decide for yourselves that they are not, I don't know.

Read the 9th and 10th amendments as Josephus23 so succinctly pointed out. Congress can only pass bills within their scope of authority. If congress passed a bill that said it was ok for congressmen to rape the wives of the citizens at will with no recourse from the citizens would you consider that to be law? According to your logic you would.

Hopefully that illustrates the point that not every bill congress passes is automatically binding law, and if it is outside their scope it is not law and does not apply to the people. Because as extreme as my example is to illustrate the point that is exactly what congress does except it rapes us of our rights, wealth, and property, with the myriads of unlawful statutes they enact outside their scope of authority. Attorneys, government agents, and police facilitate that rape through ignorance, coercion, force and fear!

edit on 13-3-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

As one poster has pointed out, legally speaking, that law would be effective and lawful until it was declared unlawful by the Supreme Court.

In the UK, there is an oft-cited example to illustrate the fact that the legislature can enact whatever law it pleases so long as it is within it's remit.

"Parliament can legislate to ban smoking on the streets of Paris, should it wish to. It does not mean that anyone would stop smoking on the streets of Paris, but the fact would remain that, in English law, it is illegal to smoke on the streets of Paris".

It is of course slightly bizarre to hear that, but the point is legally valid.

As to your argument that the Constitution only recognises common law and admiralty jurisdictions... well yes, it says that they are recognised, amongst other things. All you need to look at is Article 3, s.2, which describes cases coming under the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. I quote:

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects"

Admiralty law is in there, but it is plainly obvious that the Court has the power to review cases arising out of United States Laws (i.e. Federal legislation).

Once more... you insist that there is 'common law jurisdiction'. You have made that term up. The common law is just the collective body of rules arising from decided cases. There is no such thing as a 'common law jurisdiction' in the United States, and it no longer exists in England (and even then the distinction was only important because of the remedies one derived either at common law or in equity - now you receives remedies from both in the same court). When one says 'a common law jurisdiction', that just refers to the legal system in place. Just as you would describe France as a 'civil law jurisdiction', so is the United States a common law jurisdiction. The term is of no application when examining the jurisdiction of a court to preside over legal suits.

Amendments 9 and 10 have nothing to do with this argument over whether or not courts have the jurisdiction to hear cases involving prosecution/action under a federal statute. Amendment 10 itself says that those powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved... well, what powers are you claiming are reserved the people? The US constitution explicitly states that the federal government is empowered to enact legislation.

Can you please explain how the federal government is restrained from passing legislation which applies to individuals? As I have used the example before, the Texas Constitution says that texas is subject to the constitution of the united states which (derp derp) grants the federal government power to pass laws...

You are either playing devil's advocate and arguing for the sake of it, or not taking the time to comprehend what myself or other posters have been saying.

Your rebuttal?

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Josephus23

 

Would you clear up something for me? I've looked up the Act of 1801 that you've mentioned, and, for the life of me, I can't find any thing in that Act that creates any new corporation, let alone a foreign one.

You must be familiar with it, could you tell me where the incorporation provision is found? Thanks in advance.

Act of 1801

I've now looked at the 1871 act and that one merges the various municipal corporations (commonly called cities or towns) into one new town, Washington. A town or a city isn't a business corporation, and it's not a foreign corporation. I'm confused here as well.

edit on 13-3-2011 by charles1952 because: Add last paragraph.

I'm just adding my 2 cents here, but as far as I know certain municipal bodies are incorporated (i.e. the Corporation of the City of London) so that they can have legal personality in order to both derive rights which can be upheld in Court.

I think far too often a confusion over the term 'corporation' is just the culprit here. It is a confusing term because, in common parlance, we associate that term with economic activity exclusively - the legal definition is however quite different.

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by duality90

 

Duality.... I think that I might be able to answer your confusion regarding legislation and law.

This all hinges upon two acts:

The first is the Organic Act of 1871.
This essentially was the first step toward incorporating our nation after the civil war.

It must be remembered that Lincoln was horribly fearful for our economy after the war. With the newly freed number of men jobs would be scarce and the monies needed to fund this employment must come from somewhere.
Lincoln was adamantly against a central bank (funny that he was assassinated). At one time he proposed creating a colony in South America similar to Liberia in order to house the "freed" slaves.

So with Lincoln dead and out of the way. The first thing that congress did was create an act that would abolish the dual municipalities of the City of Washington and The District of Columbia and merge then into one single entity known as the District of Columbia (this was for a very specific reason that I will get to in a minute).

The second aspect of this explanation rests with the next District of Columbia Act of 1801. This act is by far the most unknown, but influential acts in the history of this country.

This Act created a foreign corporation in the District of Columbia and it was named THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A FOREIGN CORPORATION... open and ready to do business, oh yeah, it also has the responsibility to protect the rights and liberties of its "citizens/employees", but not by the means originally intended by the Constitution.
It does so the same way a corporation would handle internal issues.
With codes.

Now, it all started out rather harmlessly as this corporation originally made money the old fashioned way... tariffs, corporate taxes, etc...

However, with the "ratification" of the 14th Amendment, everything changed. (4 states did not originally ratify this Amendment and in order to get it passed the then President used his "emergency war powers" to completely replace each of the respective 4 state's representatives with lackeys who eventually ratified the 14th Amendment)

The US Constitution did not originally address citizenship because Federal citizenship was a BAD thing.
We were originally citizens of the state (country) of our birth.
We had God given rights that were not legislated, but ours by right of birth.

The only reason for a trial was if ONE person had a problem with another PERSON.

That is what makes a LAW different from a LEGISLATED STATUTE or CODE.

With a law a victim must be present.

The reason that we have statutes and codes that are considered law is because the 14th Amendment makes us all citizens/employees of the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and therefore our rights are legislated to us instead of God given by birth.

HUGE DIFFERENCE.

edit on 3/13/2011 by Josephus23 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/13/2011 by Josephus23 because: (no reason given)

I thank you for your cordial reply and the evidence you present.

However, again I think there is alot more being read into the term 'corporation' than is really necessary. The legal term 'corporation' does not imply by necessity a business. It simply does not. A Bishopric is a corporation sole, but who really looks at a Bishop's office and goes 'wow, it's legally a corporation, so it MUST be some sinister conspiracy to make money'.

As to your reference to omissions in the Constitution - is the entire bill of rights not included in the original constitution? The 14th amendment did not appear until later because it did not become necessary to clarify who was a US Citizen until after the civil war. The only reason for the 14th amendment was to clarify the legal position after the Dred Scott case, which held that blacks could not be citizens. If people were not citizens of the United States prior to the Dred Scott case, why and how was the issue of US Citizenship even raised?

I'm sorry, but your belief that a trial could only be brought about by one person having a problem with another person is simply not true. How else would you describe criminal prosecution brought by the State against the individual?

I'm not really sure what you mean when you say that a law presupposes a relationship of victim/injurious party, where as legislation does not. Can you clarify?

I'm afraid I misled you (lied) in my above post. I am not confused over the various uses of the word "Corporation." I was attempting to soften my words. Neither of the above cited acts created a business corporation. They created a municipal corporation, they made a new town. There are no shares in this "Corporation", citizens are not corporate assets. A municipality can do some things that a commercial corporation can do, BUT THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. Various posters have seen the word Corporation and stopped exploring for the appropriate meaning.

This is like my pointing to the letters "S""K""Y" painted in yellow on a sign, announcing "Look at the yellow SKY and have some come up and say "You're a blatant liar with no education, the sky is blue."

Is there any chance we'll ever start talking about the same things here?

Originally posted by charles1952
I'm afraid I misled you (lied) in my above post. I am not confused over the various uses of the word "Corporation." I was attempting to soften my words. Neither of the above cited acts created a business corporation. They created a municipal corporation, they made a new town. There are no shares in this "Corporation", citizens are not corporate assets. A municipality can do some things that a commercial corporation can do, BUT THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. Various posters have seen the word Corporation and stopped exploring for the appropriate meaning.

This is like my pointing to the letters "S""K""Y" painted in yellow on a sign, announcing "Look at the yellow SKY and have some come up and say "You're a blatant liar with no education, the sky is blue."

Is there any chance we'll ever start talking about the same things here?

Are we not doing so right now? haha. I confess readily that the product of that act was a corporation - just not a corporation in the sense that those looking for a conspiracy believe that it is.

Unfortunately, even in light of fairly substantial evidence, all of which is available in the public domain, those who want a conspiracy will continue to insist that one exists, even though no court has ever recognized the legitimacy of any of the arguments which are based on that conspiracy.

Of course, the freemen will tell you that charges are always dismissed where these apparently invulnerable points of law are raised, but that sounds to me like a fairly convenient means of tying up the extremely loose ends of the freeman arguments without providing any evidence of such dismissals et c which are held on public record.

Sort of a 'well, I know the truth, and although I can't show you or prove it to you, you should probably just trust me'. I'll stick with hard facts and reported cases, personally.

reply to post by duality90


Is my curriculum vitae some how going to convince you one way or the other on this issue?

Universiy of Calgary Law School:
- Tax Policy
- Basic Tax Law
- Insurance Law
- International Tax Law
- Corporate Tax
- Commercial Arbitration Law
- Corporate Finance Law
- Corporate Governance and Litigation
- Securities Law
- Canadian Corporate/Securities
- Advanced Civil Procedure
- And more... for funsies like Internet Law, Biotechnology and the Law, Criminal Process, Advanced Criminal Law.
The Kellogg School and Northwestern University Law School - JD-MBA Program
The Haskayne School of Business @ The University of Calgary

3 Guesses as to the area in which I practice. Granted I'm all over the place as my interests changed a few times while I was being "educated". I'm considering a visit to the UofA for some more courses this year, because if going to school has taught me anything its that I don't know anything...

Peace.

-Lightrule

Originally posted by duality90


Are we not doing so right now? haha. I confess readily that the product of that act was a corporation - just not a corporation in the sense that those looking for a conspiracy believe that it is.

Actually since the organic act of 1871 they have various trade names such as THE UNITED STATES, US Government etc. Every government entity including the courts and even the schools is a corporation and a for profit business in every sense and can be verified as such on Dunn and Bradstreet or Standard and Poors.

Also it is right in the United States code which by the way is thier corporate policy, even they admit they are a corporation:

USC TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 176 > SUBCHAPTER A > § 3002 (15)A

(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;

Here is a Dunn and Bradstreet print out. Try it yourself if you like.
(Go to www.selectory.com... sign up for the free 7 day trial start saving to your PC here is the two with the D&B number and profiles. Look up your state and all its agencies police departments etc. etc. none of them has any authority as officers etc. that's why they do what they want and ignore your constitutional rights)

Government Of The United States

D-U-N-S® Number: 16-190-6193
Company Name: Government Of The United States
Also Known As: U S Government

Mail Address: The U S Capitol
Washington, DC, USA 20515-0001
View Map
County: District Of Columbia
MSA: Washington-Arlington-Alexandria

Country Phone Code: 1
Phone: 202-224-3121
Web Address: www.firstgov.gov

Location Type: Headquarters
Subsidiary Status: Non Subsidiary
Plant/Facility Size: 1,600 Sq Ft
Owns/Rents: Owns
Foreign Trade: Import/Export
Year Established: 1787
Ownership: Private
Accountant: David M Walker Comptroller Ge
Prescreen Score: Low Risk

Corporate Family Tree for this Company

Employee Count:
(All Sites) 2,717,080
Employment:
(Individual Site) Current Year: 3

Executives: Barack H Obama - President
Mr Joseph R Biden - Vice President

Add Decision Maker

Executive Biographies:
Barack H Obama YEAR OF BIRTH: 1961 GRADUATED FROM COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY AND HARVARD LAW SCHOOL. 1992-2004 TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO. COMMUNITY ORGANIZER, AND PRACTICED AS A CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY IN CHICAGO BEFORE SERVING THREE TERMS IN THE ILLINOIS SENATE FROM 1997 TO 2004. UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS FROM JANUARY 3, 2005 UNTIL HIS RESIGNATION ON NOVEMBER 16, 2008, FOLLOWING HIS ELECTION TO THE PRESIDENCY. HE WAS ELECTED 44TH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ON NOV 4, 2008 AND SWORN IN ON JAN 20, 2009.

Mr Joseph R Biden YEAR OF BIRTH: 1942 GRADUATED IN 1965 FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE IN NEWARK WITH A BACHELOR OF ARTS. RECEIVED HIS JURIS DOCTOR FROM SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW IN 1968. ADMITTED TO THE DELAWARE BAR IN 1969. BECAME AN ATTORNEY IN 1969, AND WAS ELECTED TO A COUNTY COUNCIL IN 1970. BIDEN WAS FIRST ELECTED TO THE SENATE IN 1972 AND BECAME THE SIXTH-YOUNGEST SENATOR IN U.S. HISTORY. HE WAS RE-ELECTED TO THE SENATE IN 1978, 1984, 1990, 1996, 2002, AND 2008, AND WAS THE FOURTH MOST SENIOR SENATOR AT THE TIME OF HIS RESIGNATION. HE RESIGNED ON JANUARY 15, 2009, FOLLOWING HIS ELECTION TO THE VICE PRESIDENCY AND WAS SWORN IN ON JANUARY 20. 2009.

SIC Code(s): 91990401 - General government, Federal government (Primary)

Line of Business: United States Federal Government

NAICS Code(s): 921190 - Other General Government Support (Primary)

United States Department of Homeland Security

D-U-N-S® Number: 05-236-8391
Company Name: United States Department of Homeland Security

Mail Address: 245 Murray Dr SW Bldg 14
Washington, DC, USA 20528-0003
View Map
County: District Of Columbia
MSA: Washington-Arlington-Alexandria

Country Phone Code: 1
Phone: 202-282-8000

View Comprehensive Record

Location Type: Headquarters
Subsidiary Status: Subsidiary
Plant/Facility Size: 103,700 Sq Ft
Owns/Rents: Owns
Year Established: 2002
Ownership: Private
Prescreen Score: Low Risk

Headquarters: Executive Office of the United
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC, USA, 20501-0001
202-456-1414

Global Ultimate Parent: Government Of The United
The U S Capitol
Washington, DC, USA 20515-0001

202-224-3121
Global Ultimate Parent
D-U-N-S® Number: 161906193

United States Border Patrol Explorer Post 456

D-U-N-S® Number: 12-314-2957
Company Name: United States Border Patrol Explorer Post 456
Also Known As: Usbp Explorer Post 456

Mail Address: 1608 N Kings Hwy
Douglas, AZ, USA 85607-6155
View Map
County: Cochise

Country Phone Code: 1
Phone: 520-805-6900

Location Type: Single Location
Subsidiary Status: Non Subsidiary
Plant/Facility Size: 2,200 Sq Ft
Year Established: 1990
Ownership: Private
Prescreen Score: Low Risk

Employee Count:
(All Sites) 2
Employment:
(Individual Site) Current Year: 2

Sales:
(All Sites) $50,000
US (Estimated/Modeled)
Sales:
(Individual Sites) $50,000
US (Estimated/Modeled)

Executives: Ms Carla Provost - President

Add Decision Maker

SIC Code(s): 86410000 - Civic and social associations (Primary)

Line of Business: Civic Organization

NAICS Code(s): 813410 - Civic & Social Organizations (Primary)

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by duality90


Are we not doing so right now? haha. I confess readily that the product of that act was a corporation - just not a corporation in the sense that those looking for a conspiracy believe that it is.

Actually since the organic act of 1871 they have various trade names such as THE UNITED STATES, US Government etc. Every government entity including the courts and even the schools is a corporation and a for profit business in every sense and can be verified as such on Dunn and Bradstreet or Standard and Poors.

Also it is right in the United States code which by the way is thier corporate policy, even they admit they are a corporation:

USC TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 176 > SUBCHAPTER A > § 3002 (15)A

(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;

edit on 13-3-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

Do you mean 'Articles of Association'? There is no such thing as 'corporate policy' in a legal sense.

And again... dude, the word corporation has several meanings. Incorporation is simply a legal process. It doesn't mean that a corporation is a business. As I had used in my earlier example, how can you possibly suppose that the office of Bishop (many, if not all of which, are corporations sole in the UK) is a moneymaking business?

Furthermore, how can you possibly say that a school is a for-profit business? From kids` lunch money? haha, this is such an absurd assertion.

To quote Black's Law Dictionary (which seems to be well-known on this site): "a legal entity entirely separate and distinct from the individuals who compose it, with the capacity of continuous existence or succession, and having the capacity of such legal entity, of taking, holding and conveying property, suing and being sued, and execising such other powers as may be conferred on it by law, just as a natural person may."

Is it really so unfathomable that 'corporation' is just a legal term which separates legal liability and personality from the individuals that compose it? Many businesses may choose to incorporate, as it removes personal liability for debts, but a corporation need not be a business.

Hope you find the info interesting.

reply to post by hawkiye


Both Standard and Poors and Dun and Bradstreet are credit reporting bureaus. Currently, I think, the USA is rated AAA but some states and cities aren't. Your sources are a guide to the risk involved in buying the debt of a municipal corporation as well as other kinds of Corporations. No the US is not the same type of corporation as General Mills. And your printout doesn't show that it is.

Haven't we done USC 28 Section 3002 before? You made a partial quote from the definitions sections which is meant to apply only to that particular Act, which is a debt collections act.



Find the rest of the terms here:

28 USC 3002

reply to post by hawkiye


Do governments need to hire/fire human beings to exist? Purchase things to operate? Pay employees? In order to do these things a legal fiction must be created to operate in the public domain. Its about as simple as that.

Consent, jurisdiction and proof of claims are the keys, not the ins-outs of corporations.

Originally posted by Lightrule
reply to post by duality90

 

Is my curriculum vitae some how going to convince you one way or the other on this issue?

Universiy of Calgary Law School:
- Tax Policy
- Basic Tax Law
- Insurance Law
- International Tax Law
- Corporate Tax
- Commercial Arbitration Law
- Corporate Finance Law
- Corporate Governance and Litigation
- Securities Law
- Canadian Corporate/Securities
- Advanced Civil Procedure
- And more... for funsies like Internet Law, Biotechnology and the Law, Criminal Process, Advanced Criminal Law.
The Kellogg School and Northwestern University Law School - JD-MBA Program
The Haskayne School of Business @ The University of Calgary

3 Guesses as to the area in which I practice. Granted I'm all over the place as my interests changed a few times while I was being "educated". I'm considering a visit to the UofA for some more courses this year, because if going to school has taught me anything its that I don't know anything...

Peace.

-Lightrule

You don't need to be so damn hostile. I was more interested in whether you were a regular advocate or a commercial lawyer in the corporate sense, rather than what your academic background was, and what it was you had seen in practice which convinced you that the freeman arguments were with some weight.

Also, please do weigh in. If you've got loads of year in practice, surely you can set the issue straight? From the research I have done, none of the arguments have any legal weight.

Alas though, I am not so utterly self-interested as to not be open to new evidence and arguments which would make me question my own position.

Also, you had an LLB from Canada AND a JD from the US? how long were you in school for dude?!

reply to post by charles1952

hawkiye: "Congress can only pass bills within their scope of authority. If congress passed a bill that said it was ok for congressmen to rape the wives of the citizens at will with no recourse from the citizens would you consider that to be law? According to your logic you would.

Hopefully that illustrates the point that not every bill congress passes is automatically binding law, and if it is outside their scope it is not law and does not apply to the people."

charles1952
Well, as unbelievable as it seems, for our purposes of discussion, a bill passed by both houses and signed IS law. No matter how crazy. This can be prevented by the executive branch by veto. If they both approve, it IS law until ruled unconstitutional by a court.

Sigh! It's unbelievable because it is not true! It goes against nearly 200 years of American jurisprudence and even farther back in antiquity and invalidates the very Idea that all power is inherent in the people. The people created government. The creation is not greater and has more authority then its creator. Even the Supreme court ruled that is not the case.

Reason and logic dictates the absurdity of allowing rape to the politician class would be law until repealed or struck down by the judicial. Just because a group called congress with no authority to pass such a law passes it does not make it law. The presumption that everything congress does is lawful and must be obeyed until struck down or repealed is absurd and the very problem with America today.

What part of "they cannot act outside thier scope" and "that if they do it is of no force" do you not understand? If I form a gang and come to your house to collect money under threat of arrest or harm that does not make it lawful, for I have no authority. Congress does not have some magical mandate to operate outside their authority anymore then you or I do.

Here are few excerpts From Justice Marshall giving the opinion of the court in the famous case to read and understand that any law passed repugnant to the constitution is null and void and as if it had never been passed and of no force or effect.

Marbury v. Madison
The Secretary of State, being a person holding an office under the authority of the United States, is precisely within the letter of the description; and if this court is not authorized to issue a writ of mandamus to such an officer, it must be because the law is unconstitutional, and therefore incapable of conferring the authority, and assigning the duties which its words purport to confer and assign.

The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.

This theory is essentially attached to a written constitution, and is, conse-quently, to be considered, by this court, as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not therefore to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.

If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts, and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by hawkiye

 

Both Standard and Poors and Dun and Bradstreet are credit reporting bureaus. Currently, I think, the USA is rated AAA but some states and cities aren't. Your sources are a guide to the risk involved in buying the debt of a municipal corporation as well as other kinds of Corporations. No the US is not the same type of corporation as General Mills. And your printout doesn't show that it is.

It does show it you need to read it more carefully and it shows they are private corporations, so who is the principle? if you want to pay you can get a comprehensive report with a profit and loss sheet and a host of other things. You people want to sit here and take shots in your ignorance refusing to do your homework limiting yourself to what you have been brainwashed with by media and assuming you have all the facts. As I said Ignorance is bliss. Wilful ignorance when the facts are available is just plain stupidity. I will not do your homework for you.

Originally posted by duality90
You don't need to be so damn hostile. I was more interested in whether you were a regular advocate or a commercial lawyer in the corporate sense, rather than what your academic background was, and what it was you had seen in practice which convinced you that the freeman arguments were with some weight.

Also, please do weigh in. If you've got loads of year in practice, surely you can set the issue straight? From the research I have done, none of the arguments have any legal weight.

Alas though, I am not so utterly self-interested as to not be open to new evidence and arguments which would make me question my own position.

Also, you had an LLB from Canada AND a JD from the US? how long were you in school for dude?!

Hmm, sorry for sounding hostile. I didn't mean too.

UGH! I had a post all written out and upon my proofing realized it was pretty horrible as I was interrupted by kids banging on the door, cooking dinner and making some cheese cake, I simply didn't put enough effort into it to be able to post it without looking like a nutter. Simply, my argument was jumbled and poorly written.

The short and dirty version of what I had written before is that in law there is a recognized hierarchy. I think you would do well to research Ecclesiastical Law. Ever hear of it? What about a Ecclesiastical Deed Poll?

We are all born the same way, naked and screaming. We are all equal in the eyes of the law.
Do you think many years of schooling somehow allow you or anyone to claim a higher position than anyone else?
How did being born in Canada make me a citizen of this government? (I know the answer to this, do you?)

I have just as much right to exist on this planet as any President, Prime Minister, Lawyer, Footballer, Teacher, Chef etc. out there. The consent of a man is not required for me to live a life. So why do we pretend it does?

Looking at this solely as a lawyer will not help you, you will need to realize a few cold hard facts about your existence before my words resonate with you in any way. In this I cannot help you. I can only offer a few words... WE ARE ALL ONE.

Peace

-Lightrule

P.S. - 14 years total so far.