I read through it (almost all of it, though it can be sleep inducing at points), but I didn't find anything that led to any implication of bankruptcy of the US. Nor do I see how this tied into the Organic Act of 1871. Not to say they aren't related, I just didn't see anything on a reading of it.
This Treaty is regarding the Alabama Claims, which is itself a very interesting tidbit about the civil war not taught in school:
The United States demanded compensation from Britain for the damage wrought by the British-built, Southern-operated commerce raiders, based upon the argument that the British Government, by aiding the creation of a Confederate Navy, had inadequately followed its neutrality laws. The damages discussed were enormous. Charles Sumner, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, argued that British aid to the Confederacy had prolonged the Civil War by 2 years, and indirectly cost the United States hundreds of millions, or even billions of dollars (the figure Sumner suggested was $2.125 billion).
This led to the Treaty of Washington which laid the groundwork for our system of International Law (which is to say, a One World Government) and is tied to the creation of the League of Nations (later called the United Nations).
The link above says this about the resolution:
At Geneva, in 1872, the United States was awarded $15,500,000 pursuant to the terms of the treaty, and the British apologized for the destruction caused by the British-built Confederate ships but admitted no guilt. However, no compensation for damages done to the U.S. by British-built blockade runners carrying arms supplies to the Confederacy (which prolonged the war by two years and killed 400,000 additional Americans) was offered.
The ties to the League of Nations/UN are particularly interesting. If it walks like Bankster fuckery, and talks like Bankster fuckery, it's probably fuckery of the Bankster variety.
Still, the details of how this document relates to the supposed bankruptcy of the USA or the creation of the D.C. city-state eludes me.
My sentiments too. How is this relevant to being taken over by a corporation? If this treaty does somehow say that, then their obfuscation approaches the craft of wizardry.
I read the whole thing, nothing in it talks about converting the us republic to a corporation... its long, boring, and terse. I'd love to hear if anyone has some other official document ..
I am not sure what "meaning" you are talking about. If you mean the document provided, I look at everything through the lens of BLD. Not that I've memorized the entire BLD, but I have read so much of it, and so much of US law in general, I understand fairly well what things mean "within the law" just on cursory examination. Not to suggest that I will necessarily catch everything, but it is always the lens through which I read.
I agree that using BLD is (generally) the best way to interpret the law (because that is how it is done in our courts), but the surrounding context of society at the time is also crucial. In this case however, the document linked to is not complicated (at least not in any obvious way) and in no way provides any link to the D.C. municipal corporation (never mentioned or alluded to) nor does it discuss US bankruptcy. On the contrary, it seems very focused on getting reparations from Britain, through Treaty, for it's complicity in damages during the Civil War.
That doesn't mean there is no connection given some larger context, but that larger context is not contained within the document itself as far as I could find.
The larger context is the United States Corporation and the British Crown renegotiated everything, including fishing rights, because the United States Corporation was a new entity.
No special twists of meaning when the entire subject matter of the treaty concerns debts, territory boundaries, and the appointment of commissioners to determine details. (I went through all 43 articles.)
Did you read the treaty? Prove me wrong. Distressingly typical response of a know-nothing: avoid the actual issue and cast an imprecation against the speaker.
What's there to prove? That you wasted your time reading 43 articles and missed the forest for the trees?
You already admitted that.
Why would the United States and England need to renegotiate everything, including fishing rights, after the US declared itself to be a corporation? All you read is proof that the renegotiation happened.
And let's not forget there was a third party involved in those negotiations, and that was a representative of the Vatican, which was exercising its temporal power through Spain at that time.
the third Commissioner shall be named by the Representative at Washington of His Majesty the King of Spain.
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
Nothing to prove, especially by you, since you must not have read it.
What are you talking about? There is no reference to the United States being or declaring itself a "corporation." There is no reference to "renegotiate everything." This had to do with tidying up a number of things that had been left hanging in abeyance (there was no original negotiation). This was a pretty common necessity ever since the U.S. won its independence. (One of the outcomes of the subsequent negotiations was the adoption of the 49th parallel as the border between the U.S. and Canada, westward of a certain known point, and the determination of the ownership of the San Juan islands. This resulted in the unforeseen anomaly of Point Roberts, accessible only through Canada.)
This treaty only set up the framework for negotiations to occur in the future. No settlement negotiation occurred in this treaty, and it is NOT "proof that the renegotiation happened." You are so far off base, it is clear you don't understand it at all.
Any third party involved in the negotiations was part of a forthcoming event. This treaty only specified that there would be one, a supposedly neutral party acceptable to both the U.S. and Great Britain. Do you have any evidence that it was a representative of the Vatican? And what difference did it make to the matters to be discussed?
A "corporation" is any collective body having identity as a legal entity. The U.S., by virtue of its constitution is a "corporation" in that general sense. When municipalities are formed, they are "incorporated" as the City of Federal Way, or the City of Auburn. It has nothing in common with commercial corporations, which are creatures of government permission.
I didn't miss a damn thing, and I notice you have nothing to say about what I supposedly missed.
We can replace your bullshit with a fact check, since you will deny the Organic Act of 1871 has any meaning whatsoever other than what this fact check says.
You're 100% wrong, unless you're claiming the year 1871 came before 1818.
Oh wait, they subsequently renegotiated the 49th parallel because the United States was now a corporation and they forgot to add that part in the 43 articles.
I scanned all 43 articles. You are correct. There is no sauce here for the whole subject of a "U.S. corporation" or any subjugation to the English crown or the Vatican. This is a closet that contains only bats and cobwebs.
Interdasting. I was a bit skeptical since Jan Halper-Hayes called it a “treaty”, rather than an “act” as it was the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 from what I gather, but now I see “treaty” wording with Lara’s tweet. (I thought Halper-Haynes had miss-spoke which diminished her comment in my eyes, but perhaps it is I that need to investigate further.)
There are two documents. The "Washington" Treaty of 1871, which this addresses. And the Organic Act of 1871 that deals with the formation of the present municipality of Washington D.C. They both occurred in 1871...and coincidences are a fact of life.
Or just read Anna von Reitz. The evidence for the corporate United States is overwhelming. I mean, even cursory examination fleshes that out to be true. I've known about this for 15 years. Maybe longer and try to wake people up, but you know...
The United States IS a corporation. It is a governmental corporation. It always has been. Please see my response in this thread here. For further evidence and elaboration, read the entire comment thread (fair warning, it is quite long and has more than a couple “continue this thread?” buttons you have to press. I suggest the resolution at the end is worth it though. At some point I will write all the concepts elaborated in that thread formally.
I've read Anna von Reitz's stuff (at least some of it relating to this) and I am completely unconvinced. She is terrible at sourcing, but great at making claims that sound "learned" (a possible indication of Controlled Opposition). Please provide me with actual evidencein the laws that supports the claims.
It absolutely is a corporation. The original Republic was adjourned Sine Die in 1865 or there about (forget the exact year off the top of my head.) What Trump is doing is trying to reinstantiate the Republic under the Constitution and to get us out from under British and Vatican control through those corporate entities.
I searched for Reitz and she looks like more of the usual Law of the Sea, secret contracts, special corporate bodies that somehow constrains us. Magic words on unknown papers never seen yet somehow those words govern us. Even if all these words do exist somewhere, how are they enforceable? The US ignores treaties it signed decades ago whenever it becomes convenient.
That's some tough reading. Just a simple search for 'corp' doesn't really seem to turn up anything.
The High Contracting Parties agree that all claims on the part of corporations, companies, or private individuals, citizens of the United States, upon the Government of Her Britannic Majesty, arising out of acts committed against the persons or property of citizens of the United States during the period between the thirteenth of April, eighteen hundred and sixty-one, and the ninth of April, eighteen hundred and sixty-five, inclusive, not being claims growing out of the acts of the vessels referred to in Article I of this Treaty, and all claims, with the like exception, on the part of corporations, companies, or private individuals, subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, upon the Government of the United States, arising out of acts committed against the persons or property of subjects of Her Britannic Majesty during the same period, which may have been presented to either Government for its interposition with the other, and which yet remain unsettled, as well as any other such claims which may be presented within the time specified in Article XIV of this Treaty, shall be referred to three Commissioners, to be appointed in the following manner—....
I’m certain it is worded to be as obfuscated as possible. I’m drinking, so there is no way I can wade through it right now. Perhaps tomorrow, unless some other Anon can put it into plain English.
In plain English, it is typical legal enumeration of "anyone covered by this agreement." If you are not part of the enumerated classes, you have no standing to make claims. No surprise.
I've heard this all before but never has anyone shown me an authoritative source on it.. its always some overemotional blog post with little facts and sources...
This isn't a light thing to say, it needs some real facts...
I have heard it before as well regarding the 20th century and various treaties. But yeah we do need to find something more substantial to go on if we are talking about the 19th century.
The Logan link says we won the case and the British had to pay us. The word corporations appears twice in the link, referring to "claims of...corporations, companies..." of both nations. Appears to me Logan is diminishing the US corporation theory. That does not diminish the rest of what Halper-Hayes said in support of Trump.
No, there is no explicit mention of corporations in the articles of the Treaty of Washington of 1871 between the United States and Great Britain. The treaty focuses on resolving government-to-government disputes and establishing state-to-state relationships regarding boundaries, navigation, commerce, fishing rights, etc.
While Article XII refers to "claims on the part of corporations, companies, or private individuals" for losses during the Civil War, the treaty does not otherwise directly address the interests or roles of corporations. Its main focus is clarifying rights and responsibilities between the US and British governments rather than regulating private corporate entities.
A long time ago, I was an impressionable 22 year old, and a Libertarian candidate rolled through town who was running for a 1994 congressional seat. His name was Barrie Konikov.
His meeting was essentially a starter-pack on things we all know now. He said US taxes were voluntary (that year I stopped paying, haven't paid since).
We were told about the US being a corporation, about the meaning of gold-fringed flags, about how bad the federal reserve is, etc.
We were handed out pamphlets and small stapled booklets. Wish I had kept them, they would be great souvenirs.
If you're upset it's taken 5 years, keep in mind at least some of us have been waiting 30+.
This article became big news when Trump opened up fishing in Maine and banned Canada from fishing the same waters.
Article XIX.
It is agreed by the High Contracting Parties thatBritish subjects shall have, in common with the citizens of the United States, the liberty, for the term of years mentioned in Article XXXIII of this Treaty, to take fish of every kind, except shell-fish, on the eastern sea-coasts and shores of the United States north of the thirty-ninth parallel of north latitude, and on the shores of the several islands thereunto adjacent, and in the bays, harbors, and creeks of the said sea-coasts and shores of the United States and of the said islands, without being restricted to any distance from the shore, with permission to land upon the said coasts of the United States and of the islands aforesaid, for the purpose of drying their nets and curing their fish;provided that, in so doing, they do not interfere with the rights of private property, or with the fishermen of the United States in the peaceable use of any part of the said coasts in their occupancy for the same purpose.
It is understood that the above-mentioned liberty applies solely to the sea-fishery, and that salmon and shad fisheries, and all other fisheries in rivers and mouths of rivers are hereby reserved exclusively for fishermen of the United States.
The 'Gray Zone' Between the U.S. and Canada: Why This Murky Border Matters
When the U.S. Border Patrol stopped fishing boats along the border between the U.S. and Canada, it reheated centuries-old tensions between the two countries in the Gulf of Maine.
Britain raised its tariffs to squeeze out American fishermen and Canada began selling Maine Lobsters to China in response to Trump's China tariffs (China put a $0.25 tariff on every lobster sold by Americans) before Trump put a stop to this.
Trump lifts limits on commercial fishing at ocean sanctuary off New England
The session in Bangor was attended by crabbers and lobster catchers, part of a $1 billion industry in Maine, who took turns praising the president. Some complained that they couldn’t sell to Britain because of unfair tariffs, which Trump said could be easily fixed by raising taxes on British goods.
I read through it (almost all of it, though it can be sleep inducing at points), but I didn't find anything that led to any implication of bankruptcy of the US. Nor do I see how this tied into the Organic Act of 1871. Not to say they aren't related, I just didn't see anything on a reading of it.
This Treaty is regarding the Alabama Claims, which is itself a very interesting tidbit about the civil war not taught in school:
This led to the Treaty of Washington which laid the groundwork for our system of International Law (which is to say, a One World Government) and is tied to the creation of the League of Nations (later called the United Nations).
The link above says this about the resolution:
The ties to the League of Nations/UN are particularly interesting. If it walks like Bankster fuckery, and talks like Bankster fuckery, it's probably fuckery of the Bankster variety.
Still, the details of how this document relates to the supposed bankruptcy of the USA or the creation of the D.C. city-state eludes me.
My sentiments too. How is this relevant to being taken over by a corporation? If this treaty does somehow say that, then their obfuscation approaches the craft of wizardry.
I read the whole thing, nothing in it talks about converting the us republic to a corporation... its long, boring, and terse. I'd love to hear if anyone has some other official document ..
Are you going by common definitions of words, or using Black's Law Dictionary to break down the meaning?
Makes a big difference.
I am not sure what "meaning" you are talking about. If you mean the document provided, I look at everything through the lens of BLD. Not that I've memorized the entire BLD, but I have read so much of it, and so much of US law in general, I understand fairly well what things mean "within the law" just on cursory examination. Not to suggest that I will necessarily catch everything, but it is always the lens through which I read.
I agree that using BLD is (generally) the best way to interpret the law (because that is how it is done in our courts), but the surrounding context of society at the time is also crucial. In this case however, the document linked to is not complicated (at least not in any obvious way) and in no way provides any link to the D.C. municipal corporation (never mentioned or alluded to) nor does it discuss US bankruptcy. On the contrary, it seems very focused on getting reparations from Britain, through Treaty, for it's complicity in damages during the Civil War.
That doesn't mean there is no connection given some larger context, but that larger context is not contained within the document itself as far as I could find.
The larger context is the United States Corporation and the British Crown renegotiated everything, including fishing rights, because the United States Corporation was a new entity.
Ground rules had to be established.
No special twists of meaning when the entire subject matter of the treaty concerns debts, territory boundaries, and the appointment of commissioners to determine details. (I went through all 43 articles.)
You don't even believe Q's real.
Nobody cares.
Did you read the treaty? Prove me wrong. Distressingly typical response of a know-nothing: avoid the actual issue and cast an imprecation against the speaker.
What's there to prove? That you wasted your time reading 43 articles and missed the forest for the trees?
You already admitted that.
Why would the United States and England need to renegotiate everything, including fishing rights, after the US declared itself to be a corporation? All you read is proof that the renegotiation happened.
And let's not forget there was a third party involved in those negotiations, and that was a representative of the Vatican, which was exercising its temporal power through Spain at that time.
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002
Nothing to prove, especially by you, since you must not have read it.
What are you talking about? There is no reference to the United States being or declaring itself a "corporation." There is no reference to "renegotiate everything." This had to do with tidying up a number of things that had been left hanging in abeyance (there was no original negotiation). This was a pretty common necessity ever since the U.S. won its independence. (One of the outcomes of the subsequent negotiations was the adoption of the 49th parallel as the border between the U.S. and Canada, westward of a certain known point, and the determination of the ownership of the San Juan islands. This resulted in the unforeseen anomaly of Point Roberts, accessible only through Canada.)
This treaty only set up the framework for negotiations to occur in the future. No settlement negotiation occurred in this treaty, and it is NOT "proof that the renegotiation happened." You are so far off base, it is clear you don't understand it at all.
Any third party involved in the negotiations was part of a forthcoming event. This treaty only specified that there would be one, a supposedly neutral party acceptable to both the U.S. and Great Britain. Do you have any evidence that it was a representative of the Vatican? And what difference did it make to the matters to be discussed?
A "corporation" is any collective body having identity as a legal entity. The U.S., by virtue of its constitution is a "corporation" in that general sense. When municipalities are formed, they are "incorporated" as the City of Federal Way, or the City of Auburn. It has nothing in common with commercial corporations, which are creatures of government permission.
I didn't miss a damn thing, and I notice you have nothing to say about what I supposedly missed.
We can replace your bullshit with a fact check, since you will deny the Organic Act of 1871 has any meaning whatsoever other than what this fact check says.
https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2021/01/fact-check-act-of-1871-did-not-establish-the-united-states-as-a-corporation.html
u/#wrong
You're 100% wrong, unless you're claiming the year 1871 came before 1818.
Oh wait, they subsequently renegotiated the 49th parallel because the United States was now a corporation and they forgot to add that part in the 43 articles.
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/convention-of-1818
Bankster fuckery is the only plausible thing I see in this 1871 stuff. Maybe the 1871 incantations mean something to the DS cult bankers.
I scanned all 43 articles. You are correct. There is no sauce here for the whole subject of a "U.S. corporation" or any subjugation to the English crown or the Vatican. This is a closet that contains only bats and cobwebs.
Interdasting. I was a bit skeptical since Jan Halper-Hayes called it a “treaty”, rather than an “act” as it was the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 from what I gather, but now I see “treaty” wording with Lara’s tweet. (I thought Halper-Haynes had miss-spoke which diminished her comment in my eyes, but perhaps it is I that need to investigate further.)
I found THIS on the world wide web. You might find it interesting.
There are two documents. The "Washington" Treaty of 1871, which this addresses. And the Organic Act of 1871 that deals with the formation of the present municipality of Washington D.C. They both occurred in 1871...and coincidences are a fact of life.
Or just read Anna von Reitz. The evidence for the corporate United States is overwhelming. I mean, even cursory examination fleshes that out to be true. I've known about this for 15 years. Maybe longer and try to wake people up, but you know...
The United States IS a corporation. It is a governmental corporation. It always has been. Please see my response in this thread here. For further evidence and elaboration, read the entire comment thread (fair warning, it is quite long and has more than a couple “continue this thread?” buttons you have to press. I suggest the resolution at the end is worth it though. At some point I will write all the concepts elaborated in that thread formally.
I've read Anna von Reitz's stuff (at least some of it relating to this) and I am completely unconvinced. She is terrible at sourcing, but great at making claims that sound "learned" (a possible indication of Controlled Opposition). Please provide me with actual evidence in the laws that supports the claims.
It absolutely is a corporation. The original Republic was adjourned Sine Die in 1865 or there about (forget the exact year off the top of my head.) What Trump is doing is trying to reinstantiate the Republic under the Constitution and to get us out from under British and Vatican control through those corporate entities.
https://pic8.co/sh/My8fj7.jpg
I searched for Reitz and she looks like more of the usual Law of the Sea, secret contracts, special corporate bodies that somehow constrains us. Magic words on unknown papers never seen yet somehow those words govern us. Even if all these words do exist somewhere, how are they enforceable? The US ignores treaties it signed decades ago whenever it becomes convenient.
Ok overwhelming evidence.. got any official historic docs to point to? Not some hyperbolic blog, but historical docs...
Here it is in black and white
https://pic8.co/sh/My8fj7.jpg
Don't be afraid of doing your own research.
Do you know what the definition of Federal is? Get an old dictionary and look it up.
Once that's done think about what it means when you hear names like Federal Government, Federal Reserve Bank, and so on.
That's some tough reading. Just a simple search for 'corp' doesn't really seem to turn up anything.
I’m certain it is worded to be as obfuscated as possible. I’m drinking, so there is no way I can wade through it right now. Perhaps tomorrow, unless some other Anon can put it into plain English.
In plain English, it is typical legal enumeration of "anyone covered by this agreement." If you are not part of the enumerated classes, you have no standing to make claims. No surprise.
I've heard this all before but never has anyone shown me an authoritative source on it.. its always some overemotional blog post with little facts and sources...
This isn't a light thing to say, it needs some real facts...
I have heard it before as well regarding the 20th century and various treaties. But yeah we do need to find something more substantial to go on if we are talking about the 19th century.
Finally, some sauce or at least a starting point for sauce.
The Logan link says we won the case and the British had to pay us. The word corporations appears twice in the link, referring to "claims of...corporations, companies..." of both nations. Appears to me Logan is diminishing the US corporation theory. That does not diminish the rest of what Halper-Hayes said in support of Trump.
No, there is no explicit mention of corporations in the articles of the Treaty of Washington of 1871 between the United States and Great Britain. The treaty focuses on resolving government-to-government disputes and establishing state-to-state relationships regarding boundaries, navigation, commerce, fishing rights, etc.
While Article XII refers to "claims on the part of corporations, companies, or private individuals" for losses during the Civil War, the treaty does not otherwise directly address the interests or roles of corporations. Its main focus is clarifying rights and responsibilities between the US and British governments rather than regulating private corporate entities.
A long time ago, I was an impressionable 22 year old, and a Libertarian candidate rolled through town who was running for a 1994 congressional seat. His name was Barrie Konikov.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrie_Leslie_Konicov
His meeting was essentially a starter-pack on things we all know now. He said US taxes were voluntary (that year I stopped paying, haven't paid since).
We were told about the US being a corporation, about the meaning of gold-fringed flags, about how bad the federal reserve is, etc.
We were handed out pamphlets and small stapled booklets. Wish I had kept them, they would be great souvenirs.
If you're upset it's taken 5 years, keep in mind at least some of us have been waiting 30+.
Sticky for the important history. Thanks Anon.
This article became big news when Trump opened up fishing in Maine and banned Canada from fishing the same waters.
Article XIX.
It is agreed by the High Contracting Parties that British subjects shall have, in common with the citizens of the United States, the liberty, for the term of years mentioned in Article XXXIII of this Treaty, to take fish of every kind, except shell-fish, on the eastern sea-coasts and shores of the United States north of the thirty-ninth parallel of north latitude, and on the shores of the several islands thereunto adjacent, and in the bays, harbors, and creeks of the said sea-coasts and shores of the United States and of the said islands, without being restricted to any distance from the shore, with permission to land upon the said coasts of the United States and of the islands aforesaid, for the purpose of drying their nets and curing their fish; provided that, in so doing, they do not interfere with the rights of private property, or with the fishermen of the United States in the peaceable use of any part of the said coasts in their occupancy for the same purpose.
It is understood that the above-mentioned liberty applies solely to the sea-fishery, and that salmon and shad fisheries, and all other fisheries in rivers and mouths of rivers are hereby reserved exclusively for fishermen of the United States.
The 'Gray Zone' Between the U.S. and Canada: Why This Murky Border Matters
When the U.S. Border Patrol stopped fishing boats along the border between the U.S. and Canada, it reheated centuries-old tensions between the two countries in the Gulf of Maine.
Britain raised its tariffs to squeeze out American fishermen and Canada began selling Maine Lobsters to China in response to Trump's China tariffs (China put a $0.25 tariff on every lobster sold by Americans) before Trump put a stop to this.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/grey-zone-disputed-border-us-canada-news
Trump lifts limits on commercial fishing at ocean sanctuary off New England
The session in Bangor was attended by crabbers and lobster catchers, part of a $1 billion industry in Maine, who took turns praising the president. Some complained that they couldn’t sell to Britain because of unfair tariffs, which Trump said could be easily fixed by raising taxes on British goods.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/06/05/trump-fishing-seamounts-marine-national-monument/
A comment under the original twixt (what is the new expression) yielded some gold. This site has many original source docs https://anticorruptionsociety.wordpress.com/source-documents/
This is a copy of the original articles of incorporation https://anticorruptionsociety.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/articles-of-incorporation-of-u-s-corp-company.pdf