Ok, hear me out ...... let's start off with 2 datums .... 1. We are watching a movie and 2. Trump is currently the "real" president acting as such.
So, if we are watching a movie and all the important actors are playing their parts well under control, why would any plan depend upon the variability of an election at this point? Why depend upon a single individual staying healthy etc. (i.e. Trump). It would seem if we are watching a movie then all important variables can be accounted for a coped with if it falls "wrong", an actor/controlled asset replaced etc. Also if the next election is vital, wouldn't Q be communicating to us to assist as such? Q has gone dark because we did most all thats needed of us until the normies awaken.
Secondly if Trump is actually doing his 2nd term, he does not get 3 per the rules (assuming we playing fair in that case).
If we are watching a movie, then we can assume most all individuals with power to affect real outcomes are under control (maybe the blackmail material is in white hats hands and they do what they are told like how RICO is run). It seems like Trumps first term was to put various last steps in place Space force, various EO's etc. and now he may only have a small part to play in the final stretch. Q did say they have plans "beyond Trump".
If we are "watching a movie", all vital variables must be under control at a probably impressive scale.
From Black's Law Dictionary 6th ediction, page 340 (sorry, I don't have a good link for that, I had to download it from torrent).
A corporation is a legal entity (AKA legal person) that has been incorporated (made corporeal, i.e. made "real" with respect to Law) that acts as a legal shield between the Natural Persons that make the decisions ("Trustees" or "Directors") in the name of the corporation (legal person), and the consequences of the decisions themselves.
This "legal shield" (relating only to our concept of "consequences of Law") is the purpose of all corporate entities, whether they be LLCs, Trusts, 501(3)(c)s, municipal corporations, governmental corporations, etc..
From United States v. Perkins, 1896 (page 6):
From Republica v. Sweers, 1779:
The United States is a corporation, and has been from the very beginning. In the case of the second example, it was considered a Corporation (legal entity acting as shield) even before the creation of the US Constitution (though it was under the strictures of the original Articles of Incorporation, i.e. US Govt was a different corporation (legal entity) at the time). US Govt Corporation is a legal shield that can be sued in lieu of those that actually make the decisions, i.e. the Trustees. The US Govt was "made corporeal" by declaration of the Sovereign Individuals (Natural Persons) who signed the Constitution. Its Corporate Rules (the limits of the legal powers of that Corporate entity) are stated legally (by law, and as law) in the Constitution, which is just a fancy name for Articles of Incorporation.
The idea that the "US switched from a republic to a corporation" doesn't understand what a "corporation" is. It may or may not have changed from one Governmental Corporation to another Governmental Corporation, but if true, that is a different problem. With respect to that potential problem, I have yet to find enough evidence to support that claim to prove to myself that it happened.
Having said that, there was a new municipal corporation created in 1871 (Washington D.C.), and the Trustees for that corporation just so happen to be the exact same Trustees as for US Govt Corporation, so laws made for one may find their way to fraudulently applying to the other.
Black's Law Dictionary 6th edition is still the most popular edition because it cites actual cases along with the definitions, even though it's currently on the 11th edition.
https://files.catbox.moe/8ycril.pdf
Awesome, thank you!
I would like to see you make this case from the founding documents and not from some interpretation by some judges.
Btw the logic used in the 1799 opinion has so many holes
I didn't make the case from the court rulings. I presented the court rulings because they corroborate. The case I made was on the definition of a corporation. A corporation is a legal entity. It has no meaning outside of whatever system of laws "incorporates" it.
If you are going to criticize the 1779 court ruling with logical issues, you are going to have to be more specific. I disagree there are any logical flaws, at least not with the section I presented. Let me present my argument, and then criticize it, or the court ruling (or both) as you please. I think the problem may be a misapprehension of what "law" means.
In the case of the court ruling in question, the reason that the US Govt was a corporation despite not having a formal document to support its structure, or that the Monarchies were themselves corporations despite not having the same, is because there was a well defined system of laws (in this case Common Law) that supported the "US Govt's" or indeed, "The Crown's" claims to be a body corporate (a fictional entity defined within a specific system of law). It is the system of laws that recognized the body corporate as a single individual to which legal complaints (suits) could be made in lieu of the Natural Persons behind it.
As an aside, that doesn't mean there can't be separate suits against the Natural Persons that make up the body corporate, this is only about the legal recognition of such a fictional entity.
Any system of laws, other than Natural Law (the limits the Universe itself places upon actions, which are, quite frankly, not known) is a human contrivance. These laws don't have to be formally written down to be "laws." For example, a system of "customs" is a system of laws. In a remedial example, if you "break custom" you can get in trouble by the "village elders." Maybe in such a situation you'll be put on time out, ostracized from the society, or maybe even killed and eaten as an enemy of the state, all in accordance with "custom." It is from custom that our "common law" was originally derived, though it has since been redefined (as a form of fuckery) to be "rulings from the bench."
Formal systems of laws are not required for the creation of a body corporate (in this case a governmental corporation). In the case above, without such a formal system, the "Village Elders" are themselves, as a ruling body, a "governmental corporation" IF AND ONLY IF, grievances against them (legal proceedings, even if they aren't written down) would be placed against the entire body, and not the individuals who committed some action.
For example, if a elder made a ruling, and a villager had a grievance because of that ruling, if the grievance was, according to custom, brought against the entire body of elders rather than the individual who made the judgement, then the "system of elders" is a body corporate according to the system of laws used by the society.
In the broader sense, a governmental corporation is a single entity created by a specific system of Law: custom, common law, maritime law, legislative law, etc., or any combination of law systems that make up the total body of laws that apply (have jurisdiction) in any social situation. This "single entity" legally sits in front of the Natural Person(s) that make the actual decisions. The laws apply to the legal fiction (corporation), and not to the individuals that make it up. Again, OTHER suits could be brought against the individuals, but that doesn't change the legal existence or purpose of the body corporate.
Any and all corporations, no matter their type, are legal fictions. They have no existence outside of whatever framework of law incorporates it (makes it "real," i.e. gives it form). It doesn't matter who the Authority is that "incorporates," it just has to be agreed upon by enough people that "they have the authority" within the systems of laws that apply to incorporate, and it becomes so. That Authority could be a group of Sovereign individuals (in the case of the US Constitution), a single person (Genghis Khan e.g.), a superior ruling body (The Church (a corporate entity) in the case of the post Rome Monarchies), an Aristocratic Republic (in the case of Rome), or a State, which acts as the "Authority" (even though it is itself a corporation) to license an LLC to do business within the State boundaries.
As an example of how an "authority" becomes an Authority, In the case of the US Constitution, The Crown didn't recognize the Authority of the Sovereign Individuals and used force to prove their assertion correct. The Crown lost, so the Sovereign Individuals who made the original proclamation gained Authority by convincing enough people (the rest of the world) that they had it. This recognition of Authority was later made formal with a joint system of laws (Treaty). (I'm pretty sure that's not what really happened, but that's a different discussion.)
Before we get into a very long drawn debate about this, please make your stand clear regarding these questions:
Do you believe there were NO entities at federal or state level when US was founded that was not intended to be a corporate entity?
Do you believe the Constitution was intended to be a constitution for a corporate entity ?
Please note that if your answers involve more than one line for either of these questions or does not clearly answer the question, I am not going to bother replying.
This question is confusing. Too many negatives. Please restate.
All constitutions, as a procedure of law, are intended to create corporate entities. They are the rule set (boundaries) for a legal entity (corporation).
I suggest you can't understand what I mean by "corporation" (or indeed, what is meant by the word within the framework of law) if you don't address the argument presented above. It pretty much explains it completely, though I'm not sure if I have explained it well. A considered response would help me build a better explanation.
Thank you for injecting this bit of sanity on this topic