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.
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).
Were there any entities created at the founding that were NOT corporate entities ?
Maybe this will help.
In BLD (page 354, linked above) under the definition of Corporation, there is a sub definition to help distinguish between an aggregate and a sole corporation:
Let's try Legal Entity or Ens legis (page 530):
I can make my case purely from BLD if you wish, just let me know if you need more.
I am not sure if you read my latest reply, but at this point you are debating a point that we are not disagreeing on.
Any entity that is recognized by any system of laws that is not a Natural Person is a corporation within the jurisdiction of that system of laws, by definition.
That was not the question, but from your reluctance to answer let me go ahead and assume that your answer is: "NO, no entity that was not a corporation was created at the founding of the US"
There is no need to be so defensive just to state your position, or perhaps your defensiveness originates from the fact that stating it in those terms sounds so stupid?
I don't have the least bit of concern for the reasons for your defensiveness or how you yourself view your own stand when forced to make that stand clear. My only concern is not wasting each others' time for such reasons.
This is the reason I force people to take a stand so we don't have to waste each others time. Let me make this debate simple.
You are correct in your stand that US has always been a body corporate under common law but at the same time it is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, because when people talk about "US Corporation" they are referring to a specific type of body corporate which is a private corporation incorporated under the laws of some government, not under the common law.
If you are interested in discussing whether US indeed became incorporated as a private corporation at some time around civil war / founding of DC etc, and whether the Constitution we are currently following is now constitution for this private entity and not the corporate body under common law - I would be most interested. If you have nothing to add on that front, then we are done.
As for my stand - I will make it clear.
Sometime around the mid to late 1800s, there was a change done gradually to transfer power from the people to private entities, and one of the factors in this change was to legally incorporate the US and all States as private corporations (not simply body corporate). I dont presume to understand exactly why and how this was done, and I am always eager to learn more if someone sheds light on it.
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.
Don't presume to suggest anything before you have answered my question and made your stand clear.