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.
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 promise it isn't "reluctance." I am never reluctant to answer anything.
Since I don't understand the statement:
I think there is something being lost (for me) in the negatives. Let me try to take them out:
Is that what you are saying? I'm pretty sure I agree, though it is so vague a statement that I'm not sure.
I legitimately don't understand why you think I'm being defensive. What did I say that gave you that impression?
OK, I'm fairly certain this statement is not true at all. In my experience, most people don't have a clue what they mean when they say "US Govt is a Corporation."
But let's break it down. A corporation who's founders are the entire people subject to the jurisdiction (i.e. We The People) would be a public corporation, in this case a governmental corporation. Any corporation whose founders are a subset of the entire people subject to the jurisdiction would be a privately created corporation. I didn't sign the Constitution. Most people didn't sign the Constitution. I didn't agree to that treaty. But I also don't have any reasonable option to leave it either. I mean, I could go to another country and be subject to their ruling body, but that' doesn't change the fundamental jurisdictional fraud and forced compliance built into the privately created corporation.
Worse, in the case of our governmental corporation, it is designed to be controlled by a specific subset of the populace. The US Constitution never applied to everyone subject to its jurisdiction, not once in the history of the country. In fact originally, only land owning males could participate, all others were "subjects" without any say in how the government determined their choices. Even after changes were made to allow at least some level of input from all men, slaves, or even indentured servants (which is really all slaves were) weren't even considered people at all. Women were little better. And that's just on the surface. In practice, it was constructed such that only specific people (members of the Aristocracy) could participate at all, at least within the Judicial, and Executive branches, and the Senate as well. I'm not sure about the House. I think some "regular people" may have slipped through the cracks there.
As for the Governmental Corporation's purpose, one of its main reasons for creation was to regulate (control) trade between sovereign entities (other legal fictions) and to define (regulate) money. Its structure is basically identical to a non-profit.
So unless you mean people believe that US Govt Corp is a for profit business, its pretty much exactly the same as your definition of "what people think."
The framework for this was put in from the very beginning, within the original Constitution. The fuckery is done primarily through false claims of jurisdiction, where the government set itself up to claim ownership of the people and all their property. This is exemplified best in the fifth amendment, though there are several other sections that commit the same jurisdictional fraud.
The reason I don't think there was ever a "new corporation" laid on top of the old is because there was no need for one. All the necessary fraud was put into the original documents.
You are perhaps confusing who had the right to vote vs who the constitution applied to? This is indeed a bold statement if you are generalizing it to all the constitutional protections and that would be something worthy of multi paragraph response.
This is where we disagree. One thing I do know from experience is that even when the motives change slightly, it usually requires changing the structure of the corporation to some extent - and I am talking about regular LLC/Pty/Inc etc.
So your assertion that transitioning into a completely new form of enslavement, which required new system of financial control amongst other things could be done without transitioning from a corporate entity under common law into a private corporate structure is tenuous to say the least.
Because instead of a one line reply you wrote three comments with tons and tons of references to what prove that one line reply. And no, I am sure you are smart enough to convert a sentence with multiple NOs into a single sentence, or else I have to start questioning whether I am wasting my time looking for answers here ;)
And if you truly did not understand the question you would have asked me to clarify instead of writing 3 posts proving what your stand would have been, had you actually understood the question!