Pardon me for skepticism. There is major effort expended here on the second premise of a syllogism, namely, that "United States Corporation Company" is a highly suspect old interconnected corporation. I see nothing about the first necessary premise, namely, that "United States Corporation Company" is in fact an entity of the government of these united states. What'd I miss?
I take it you mean "Learn to channel your anger and stop attacking your own".
I ask these questions because I've seen incomplete evidences like these before and they distract people from fulfilling their missions, whether God-given or Q-sent. All I gathered from this graphic is that there's a bankrupt corporation called USCC, probably owned by Prentice Hall (Wikipedia reports that Prentice Hall Legal & Financial Services is owned by CSC). From there on, Prentice Hall, CSC, Rodman Ward (descendant of 1899 CSC founder Christopher Ward), etc. fulfill very ordinary, dry, unsurprising roles in the data presented.
The obvious problem is that anybody can go and create a corporation called USCC in 1902; not just a government official, but anybody. Bankruptcies of corporations with US in the name are quite common.
But let's imagine the whole argument to be true: pretend that our government incorporated itself in New York in 1902 under the name USCC and is now bankrupt with Prentice Hall as their registered agent. What good will that do me in life? I don't have an answer to that either.
Here is a lawyer with USCC/CSC named Jose Lorenzo. On his page the USCC's job is described as including "providing instruction on incorporating, processing mergers, and offshore registered transactions and trademarks".
In other words it's a "company" that assists creation and maintenance of "US corporations". So it's more than just a clever name!
Pardon me for skepticism. There is major effort expended here on the second premise of a syllogism, namely, that "United States Corporation Company" is a highly suspect old interconnected corporation. I see nothing about the first necessary premise, namely, that "United States Corporation Company" is in fact an entity of the government of these united states. What'd I miss?
I take it you mean "Learn to channel your anger and stop attacking your own".
I ask these questions because I've seen incomplete evidences like these before and they distract people from fulfilling their missions, whether God-given or Q-sent. All I gathered from this graphic is that there's a bankrupt corporation called USCC, probably owned by Prentice Hall (Wikipedia reports that Prentice Hall Legal & Financial Services is owned by CSC). From there on, Prentice Hall, CSC, Rodman Ward (descendant of 1899 CSC founder Christopher Ward), etc. fulfill very ordinary, dry, unsurprising roles in the data presented.
The obvious problem is that anybody can go and create a corporation called USCC in 1902; not just a government official, but anybody. Bankruptcies of corporations with US in the name are quite common.
But let's imagine the whole argument to be true: pretend that our government incorporated itself in New York in 1902 under the name USCC and is now bankrupt with Prentice Hall as their registered agent. What good will that do me in life? I don't have an answer to that either.
that and "foreign" means does business outside the state of incorporation; "domestic" is just the state where your business is physically located.
Here is a lawyer with USCC/CSC named Jose Lorenzo. On his page the USCC's job is described as including "providing instruction on incorporating, processing mergers, and offshore registered transactions and trademarks".
In other words it's a "company" that assists creation and maintenance of "US corporations". So it's more than just a clever name!