I did a blog post on this before - so I know the answer that indeed the US really is a "corporation." This is not known - by hardly anyone.
(15) “United States” means—
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HfsKO22Ycc&ab_channel=NWOsucks
So that's the first claim of the vid. It checks out!
Let's continue.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/21/464/
OK I'm not tracking this claim down.
http://wethepeopleshareholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/40-Well-Kept-Secrets.pdf
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/contcong_10-20-74.asp
OK so this first claim is not a quote but a deduction - "America is a British Colony" - the quote of "the us is a corporation" - is nOT in the Articles of association!!
So that claim is debunked.
Also the quote "the british troops" is NOT in that articles of association...
So now I'll check out this other source.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/1/41/
OK I'm not finding any corroboration - no British and no Corporation. So that source appears to be a false lead also. I'm gonna double check the previous source.
The capacity of private individuals (British subjects) or of corporations created by the Crown in this country or in Great Britain to hold lands or other property in this country was not affected by the Revolution.
I can see how this might be a problem.
It has been contended by the counsel for the defendants
1st. That the capacity of the plaintiffs as a corporation to hold lands in Vermont ceased by and as a consequence of the Revolution.
fascinating!
it is too clear to require the support of argument that all contracts and rights respecting property remained unchanged by the Revolution,
OK so -
That legal argument also does not explicitly state the supposed QUOTES. Amazing!!
https://efactssc-public.flcourts.org/CaseDocuments/2017/742/2017-742_Notice_82008.pdf
Here is someone TRYING to use the same sources in a court of law?
OK so that doesn't add to the reference at all...
Next?
The Constitution was originally designed to limit government in order to provide the greatest measure of personal freedom. That a person in power could then not usurp the citizen’s greater rights. Over time however, citizen’s guaranteed constitutional rights under the original U.S. Constitution ratified by America’s First Congress in 1789 titled “Constitution for the United States of America” was changed by Congress on February 21, 1871 under the Act of 1871, creating the “Constitution of the United States of America,” founding the corporation called “The United States,” and dividing law into those that are public and those that are private.
Wow so this is spread by Glenn Beck? NO WONDER people attacked the Capitol!! Amazing!!
So this was the real brainwashing!!
https://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/two-us-constitutions
http://www.lifeopedia.com/the-u-s-constitution-why-america-has-worked-for-so-long/
http://www.teamlaw.org/DCOA-1871.pdf
Yeah NOTHING in there about the "Constitution FOR the United States" - rather it still says the Constitution OF the United States....
Oh that's what they said - that it used to be FOR and now it's OF...
hmm.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/32/243/
I can't find any corroboration of this claim either!
That just not the claim of that lawsuit!
https://abovethelaw.com/2013/09/the-stupid-pro-se-legal-theory-making-the-rounds/
courts only have jurisdiction over two types of criminal claims, specifically common law and admiralty/military tribunals. According to the video, there can’t be common-law criminal claims because there’s no aggrieved party, and the “People” or “State” or “Commonwealth” don’t count because then the judge, as an employee of the state, has to recuse him/herself from the proceeding.
OH I get it now...
the existence of a bar between the audience and the parties exists to make the courtroom symbolically transform into the bridge of a ship, allowing the judge to act as a captain under admiralty law.
I've been studying similiar things. Like the straw man the all caps name on the birth certificate is also a corporation which the government uses as an instrument to turn into money. If you take control of it and putting a value on it by creating and getting the right documents and filling the correct paper work along with those documents with the government you become a secured party and can use the treasury to discharge all debt. Car notes mortgages whatever debt it is. In 1933 they took all the gold and put the value on us using the birth certificate and trading them on the stock market but since they did that those who found out or were already in the know that the government was now obligated to discharge all debt through the treasury. The dollar is just debt to trade with basically. There's a gentleman on YouTube name yusef el who has alot of educational videos on this. Were citizens which is property of the u.s until we become a secured party.
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing Skyler - I ran into this argument when one of the Marxist-Communist bookstore volunteers told me. I looked into it. - the claims of the "straw man" are a fraud claim dismissed by courts and fined.
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_theory
"They back this claim by misreading the legal definition of person[8] and misunderstanding the distinction between a juridicial person[9] and a natural person.[10] In accepted legal theory there is a difference between what is known as a natural person and that of a corporate person. A corporate personhood applies to business, charities, governments and other recognized organisations. Courts recognize human beings as 'persons', not as a legal fiction joined to a flesh and blood human being but as one and the same.[11] They have never recognized a right to distance oneself from one's person, or the ability to opt out of personhood.[12]"